Wolf, thanks for all that you do. The posts regarding Disavowal are from the Pacers you posted about the opposing Claim Construction briefs.

The T3 are looking to carve out portions of the MMP by asserting their claim construction terms as what the legal interpretation should be for each disputed claim within the MMP. If the T3 get their way then proving infringement will be very difficult. If we get out way then it will not be as difficult.

One thing I did not between the opposing claim construction briefs is that the T3 wrote significantly more against the variable speed ring oscillator clock than we wrote for the variable speed ring oscillator clock. The only reason I can think of is that we feel there is not much to argue and Judge Ward's construction should be persuasive enough along with the cases cited to prevent disavowal from augmenting Judge Ward's construction.

There appears to me a lot more discussion on our part regarding the 749 and 890, which makes sense from our perspective because those two patens haven't gone through a Markman hearing already.

More to come.