I discussed this briefly once before. I'm surprised so many people still do not see any such victory.

Going into the Markman the other side requested that "entire oscillator" along with "variable speed clock" and "ring oscillator" be construed together as being the same thing.

The court refused to do so and agreed with us that the different wording has different meanings. IMO, THAT IS THE VICYORY! And it is significant!

Had that issue not gone our way, proceeding with the USITC complaint would be risky. If progress at the USITC depended on the outcome of the Talbot issue or "ring oscillator" constrution, both proceedings could easily get bogged down waiting for NDOC to resolve it.

The USITC complaint is based 336 infringement of claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Should the progress get bogged down because of Talbot and or "ring oscillator" construction, we can ask the USITC to proceed only on claims 6, 10, 13 and 16. All four are independent claims, do not require resolution of Talbot or "ring oscillator" construction, are relatively easy to prove and not easily defeated. We do not need to be successful on each and every claim to obtain USITC action.

The Markman was a victory for us and there is nothing wrong with calling it what it is.

Opty