A rereading of the Markman results is also helpful. Some pertinent sections follow.

<The parties agree that a “ring oscillator” is “an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop,” which is the construction arrived at by Judge Ward in the Texas action, though they disagree about whether additional limitations should be added to Judge Ward’s construction of the term. >

<At issue is whether the phrase “ring oscillator” should be given a specialized meaning based on statements made by the inventors during reexamination of Claims 4 and 8 of the ‘148 Patent.31>

These were the arguments going into the Markman. The issue is clearly defined by the court. Please note, it is not whether Talbot discloses a ring oscillator. But then ...

<declarations and other extrinsic materials that have been tendered during the claim construction proceedings call into question the validity of the inventors’ contention to the PTO and to this Court that the “ring oscillator” is different from the “voltage-controlled oscillator” disclosed in Talbot. >

This, most likely, is the only reason the court did not complete the Markman constructions. The court is only looking for the answer to one question. Does Talbot disclose a ring oscillator?

<the declarants shall fully articulate the technical basis for their opinions with respect to whether the voltage-controlled oscillator disclosed in Talbot is or is not a ring oscillator.>

I suggest plaintiffs knew how the judge was leaning and in order to avoid a decision on the first issue created a second which would necessarily supercede the first. The benefits to the plaintiffs include delay of SJ for the 336, create confusion, hope for defendants or the court to make a mistake, hope that defendants lose the will to continue litigation.

All, IMHO

Opty