I know you're obviously frustrated and disappointed, but those were the words used in the arguments by the attorney prosecuting the patent. Those had to be set forth to get the claims allowed. It's been long held that what is said during prosecution and found in the file wrapper may be used to interpret the scope of the claims. It's clear that those interpretations are subject to the litigations that we've seen.

No one can just change the meaning of claims. The attorney prosecuting the patent has to make statements that limit or change the meaning of the claim. That was the situation here.

As to why Grewal flipped, only he knows (and maybe anyone else he may have discussed the claim construction with).