Thanks for attending and providing info re the MSJ hearing at the NDoC. After reading the USITC staff recommendation regarding non-infringement, I'm having difficulty taking their analysis as seriously as I probably should. We certainly have a more challenging claim construction to address at the USITC. The Staff didn't want to entertain the range in which the ring oscillator operates in a PLL. We saw snippets of Dr. O's testimony and a snippet from Dr. S's testimony. All we can glean from this is that TPL argued the PLL gets the ring oscillator to operate within a range. The Staff first recommended a Markman hearing was not necessary due to the quantity of prior Markmans at the EDoT and NDoC. Then they completely agree with the Respondents on the ITC MSJ. The judge disagrees with the Staff and proceeds to trial. I'm not sure why. It could've been much easier to rule in favor of the Respondents. All that being said, I would not be surprised if the ITC judge finds similarly to the Staff. I would also not be surprised if the Judge finds in favor of the Complainants. What is very telling to me regarding the Staff's analysis is the PVT analysis. The Respondents' products do infact rely on PVT, which is basic knowledge of how ring oscillators are incorprated in PLLs. Google PLL, ring oscillator, and PVT. You will see maybe 50 articles, so I find that portion of the Staff's review lacking. It appears to me they aren't trying to delve into the details to try and understand the tech. Hopefully the Judge will see things differently. Well, if we do lose at the ITC, we have a trial at the NDoC before the end of September, hopefully based upon what you experienced.