It is possible the Markman hearing was not held when Dr. Os expert analysis/evidence was submitted to the Respondents, so our legal counsel may not have wanted to take the chance and have Dr. O document something that went into too much detail prior to the Markman. More specifically, they may not have wanted Dr. O to further define the "entire oscillator" term prior to the Markman. I am confident the Markman hearing has been rendered and if we got the terms we wanted, the chess game will continue and I would bet our resply to the Respondent's motion for summary determination will be met with further detail regarding the "entire oscillator" topic.

It is also possible if Dr. O was interviewed by the Respondents when he gave his analysis/evidence that Dr. O was purposefully "broad" in his analysis as IMO our legal team may not have wanted their expert witness going into detail and explicitly stating issues on the record as the Respondents would most certainly phrase questions to attempt to lay traps for Dr. O to get him to state something that could possibly be interpreted as supporting the Respondent's position. IMO our legal counsel would rather argue the points using the written word than allow their expert witness (a techie) to argue with professional litigators/wordsmiths.

All of the above is speculation and is worth the cyber cent it took to post it.

On another note, Cliff Flowers decided to excercise his options I believe on the day or day after the Markman ruling was rendered by the ALJ at the ITC. Hopefully things will work out for us ...