Well, I read the Markman transcript as well (meow), only once, and will need to re-read it a few more times, but have some thoughts FWIW. I have also emailed the transcript to a couple of EE’s, however, I don’t believe the transcript will mean much to them without the presentations provided by attorneys from both sides as well as the claim construction charts and copies of the patents. I could have sent all of this information to them (except for the court presentations of course) but it would have been information overload, and since they are not invested in PTSC, they would probably blow it off..and they still may. Anyways, after reading the transcript, a couple of things jumped out at me. I am not an EE and even if I was, I wouldn’t take my opinion to heart. What I read does not make me feel better or worse about my investment.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Total Area – “148

The ‘148 patent talks about the chip having greater than 50% of its surface area devoted to memory. Both sides are looking to the court to define what constitutes “Surface Area”. This is important because the defense wants the court to construe “Surface Area” as the entire area of the substrate including the “unused” portion. Cook asks that the court not consider the “unused” portion of the substrate when calculating “Surface Area” and only consider the “used” area or what he refers to as the “active area” of the substrate. Cook argues that one can easily avoid infringement by simply designing a chip that is so large that it has a lot of wasted space therefore less than 50% of its surface area is devoted to memory. Cook also points out that chips used by the alleged infringers have multiple sides (6 sides in total) and that some of the sides do not have any circuitry, so these sides or area are worthless therefore should not be included in total area. Cook went further in his closing statements that the claim should be construed according to how they would be interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art. He explained, that if you are a designer of chips, and you are trying to decide how much of the chip to allocate to memory, and how much to allocate to CPU, the only space you would factor in is “active space” as the space with no circuitry is not useable. Makes total sense to me, but of course  I am not Judge Ward, but IMO Cook nailed this one. I would be surprised if Ward does not rule with Cook on this one.

Varying Together – “336

There is a lot of information on this one, and I am only going to address one aspect of the conversation(s) that took place. It has to do with how Cook answered Judge Ward’s question or specifically how he didn’t answer Judge Ward’s question in closing statements. Below is just a small portion of the conversation from the transcript between Ward and Cook:

THE COURT: Well, varying together surely means something more than both increase and both decrease, don't you think? I mean, let's say that the limitation the Defendants propose is too limiting, what limitation would you propose that would not be as limiting as the exact same amount or the same amount, but that would still incorporate the idea that you just told me about walking together, seemed at the same --you know, different oscillations. I mean, how would you capture this concept that you have just argued to me? That you have a different oscillation; it's not the exact same, but you are still going along at the same speed, you see, or approximately the same speed, or substantially the same speed. What would you propose?

MR. COOK: Well, I am not sure how you can do it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I'm just saying, you want it so that just as long as they increase and decrease; it does not have to be a relationship between the amount of the increase or the amount of the decrease. You just want it very general, that's what you're proposing to me?

MR. COOK: Right.

THE COURT: Now then, the Defendants are saying, no, Judge they said more than that in the history, I mean, it has to be the same amount. Have you got anything other than your proposal that you would consider?

MR. COOK: Not at the moment.

THE COURT: It is unfortunate. Let's go. You are not much help to me is what I am saying.

In reading this it looks bad for Cook because Ward states, “You are not much help to me”. But, and this might be a stretch, why would Cook want to answer Ward? Ward specifically asks, “You want it very general, that’s what you’re proposing to me?” And Cook answers, “Right.”  Ward than asks Cook, “Have you got anything other than your proposal that you would consider”? Cook replies, “Not at the moment”.  Why would Cook respond with any other answer that would help the Judge make it more specific, and less general? At this moment, whatever he says could potentially be more damaging to how the claim is construed, especially in light of the fact that the judge seems to be agreeing with the definition of “Varying Together”. IMO, Cook simply took the safe route here. And maybe as Ron has pointed out, Cook wanted to think about his wording and provide Ward his answer in a follow up brief.

With all of that said I am not Ward and have not a clue what any of this means and/or how Ward will rule. I have not formulated any opinion on the back and forth regarding the “584 patent. Anywasy, FWIW, JMO. GLTAL