By courtesy of Opty here's an excerpt from Agility's answer:

"Respondents have filed yet another baseless motion with the clear purpose of needlessly increasing the cost of this Investigation. They make unprincipled and unsupported arguments that there is no substantive difference between the ALJ’s construction of “ring oscillator” and any of the parties’ when clearly there is such a difference.

...

Respondents dishonestly argue that there is no distinction between the ALJ’s construction of ring oscillator and either Complainants’ or Staff’s construction of the same term. Mot. at 4-5. And during the parties’ meet and confer on this motion, Respondents even argued that their own construction was substantively the same as the ALJ’s. Say what? If that were the case, why was it even necessary to engage in claim construction at all? Respondents’ constant motion practice is unnecessary, unprincipled and arguably sanctionable. Dr. Oklobdzija provided his expert opinion as to why the ALJ’s constructions were substantively different than any parties’, and

1Respondents have offered no expert opinion to rebut that. They even declined to take his deposition. For all of these reasons, Respondents’ motion should be denied.

...

Moreover, Dr. Oklobdzija’s supplemental expert report, like his initial expert report, is incorporated into a declaration in support of Complainants’ oppositions to Respondents’ pending motions for summary determination.

As such, the supplemental expert report is now sworn testimony. See 4/23/13 Oklobdzija Decl. (in support of Complainants’ oppositions to motions for summary determination), at ¶ 3 (“I hereby incorporate my Supplemental Expert Report as if fully set forth herein.”)

That declaration was expressly permitted by Commission Rule 210.18, and was executed by Dr. Oklobdzija on April 26, 2013—well before the May 1, 2013 “[e]xpertdiscovery cutoff and completion” date set in the procedural schedule."

...

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Complainants respectfully request ask the ALJ to deny Respondents’ motion to strike the Supplemental Report of Dr. Vojin G. Oklobdzija."