We can now make a case for summary judgement. What this case has done is it hase settled the question of PLLs. If there is a PLL on the chip, the odds are strongly in our favor the accused chip infringes. I expect if we ever get to the court room again we will have many more EEs on our side and maybe we will finally purchase the equipment that definitively prooves infringement instead of relying on experts to deduce infringement, and competent attorneys who impeach opposing experts with precision and must rely on dramatic exhibits (app). Looking forward to actually logging in via my PC this weekend to make a proper post (I was going to stop writing here :-) Another important item I will add is the two markmans between the NDoC and ITC became much closer in my opinion right before the trial began due to HTC's ability to persuade Judge Grewal to allow the addition of jury instruction number 18 which equaled something to the effect of "the entire oscillator generates the clock signal without the use of the external crystal clock." That was what was added to the NDoC jury instruction. The jurors asked for clarification on "generate" term from jury instruction 6 and 18 (claim constructions). Now, at the ITC, the portion that was focused on more by the large companies was the entire oscillator that does not rely on an external crystal clock generator or command input signal to "generate" the clock signal. In my very humble opinion, I believe the inclusion of jury instruction 18 at the NDoC is tantamount to "not relying on an external crystal clock generator or commad control signal" to generate the cpu clock signal. What that means is we have a good argument for going back to the ITC and asking the commission to overrule Judge Gildea's ID. That portion referenced above is the only substantive difference in the Markmans between the two venues and because HTC got number 18 added into the claim list in the jury instruction via their argument to Judge Grewal utilizing Judge Gildea's initial determination at the ITC, I do believe the "claims" given to the jury that defined the legal question of infringement were very much the same and that Judge Gildea IMO erroneously used those claim meanings to rule in favor of the big companies. Judge Gildea essentially ruled that the ring oscillator does not generate the clock signal for the CPU by itself. He ruled the ring oscillator relies on the external crystal. Hogwash I say. There is the start up mode, the bypass mode and the dead band, which clearly demonstrate the ring oscillator is generating the clock signal by itself WITHOUT reliance on the external crystal. I believe the jurors used the same logic above to deduce infringement. Therefore, I would argue the judge erred in his ruling because a jury of nine layman understood the technology and ruled in our favor. One man, who is still a layman and made comments about how the technology was very technical, versus a jury of 9 people who came to a unanimous decision. I'm sorry but I believe the jury wins. Last point about the Markmans, in any appeal, Judge Ward in E Texas did place in his claim construction about the variable speed clock that it "does not DIRECTLY rely on a crystal clock generator or command input control signal" to clock the CPU. The "directly" verbiage is crucial and honestly I'm surprised Judge Gildea dismissed the term so easily, reasoning Judge Ward did not comment on why he added the "directly" portion. Claim construction is not where you add superfluous words to the meaning if claims as it could confuse jurors. That was very surprising to me. If we can get the ID changed at the ITC, this company will explode north. Every company would gladly hand over 10s of millions to be ae to "play" in the USA. This last part is a little wishful thinking but who knows. This was a rambling post and from a phone while I'm goin to sleep. Gnite everyone I like sweet cake, no need for frosting yet :-)