This is what I believe has/is happening (corrections welcome)

Judge Fogel signed an order that gave HTC until April 8 to move for summary judgement (for infringement). The judge specifically stated that he wanted the motion filed before the Markman hearing. (thanks Wolf for pacer info)

To my knowledge, there has been no indication that HTC did in fact do this. Does it mean they didn't or does it mean the Pacer is not yet available for viewing? I don't know

Barco on the other hand is arguing "invalidity" April 22 Barco's reply brief on its motion for leave to amend invalidity contentions will be heard. As I understand it (thanks Ron) invalidity is not something that is solely decided by the USPTO which usually looks at "prior art." Barco basically says that other evidence, such as an inventors testimony can be used to determine if the requirements of enablement and written description are met.

TPL argues that Moore's testimony is irrelevant and that Barco was not diligent in amending its invalidit contentions. I guess we shall see.