Thanks so much for the suit information. Based upon what you posted I do have a couple of questions.
"The parties have conferred in good faith, and believe that their request is unavoidable in light of the Court’s April 2, 2014 Order (Dkt. 300) vacating portions of Magistrate Judge Primomo’s Markman order."
Do you know what portions of the Markman order were vacated? If so, do you believe they were things favorable or unfavorable to Mitek?
" Both parties indicate that they will be filing summary judgment motions, and for both motions the only issue is whether USAA infringed on Mitek's patents."
This statement seems to indicate that USAA's claim that Mitek "stole" info from them which led to Mitek's product is no longer at issue. Is that correct?
AS to the first question: I believe Judge Primono's did not rule on many of the disputed claims construction issues the parties had. I think the District Judge stepped in after USAA filed a motion to reconsider and told the parities he would be ruling on the remaining disputed claims construction issues that the Magistrate Judge did not rule upon. As I am not a patent law attorney, it is hard for me to say which side is coming out on top. USAA filed the motion to reconsider after the original Markman Order, so they weren't happy with it. And I believe that the "main" claims constructions issues that were ruled on in the original Markman Order were favorable to Mitek.
As to the second question: USAA's claim that Mitek stole from them (I haven't done that much research into the lawsuit, I just check every once in awhile to see what is going on and don't recall this claim, but I'll take your word for it), that claim is not necessarily dismissed by USAA and may still be very well alive in this suit (i.e., for trial), but USAA did NOT indicate that this was an issue for summary judgment. ONLY USAA's infringement on Mitek patents.