Here is a list of people who determine the fate of this case -

336 inventors and their lawyers

Lawyer of all companies who have been accused to infringe 336

USPTO examinners who handle the 336 patent before the granting it a US patent

Judge Ward (Texas)

USPTO examinners who handle those numerous reexamination efforts brought by infringers/their freinds

ITC judges

Current judge who handle the HTC case and current claim construction

Juries of HTC case

Reside judge who can either accept or reject current claim construction recommendation

Appellate judges may hear our appeal

Except the last two who have not made any inpact on 336 claim constrction (or what the final outcome will be based on the CC), all had a voice (directly or indirectly) on what 336 tems mean. It is worth to point out that the examiner who tried to use the Sheet and Maggar patents to limit the scope of 336, and examiners who handle the reexaminations, all knew those quotes from extrinsic records the current judge used in my previous post, still, no extra strings was attached. What our side proposed construction is the same text of claim text in the 336 ("An [oscillator] that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the [central processing unit]. "

If we arrange the "entire" interprations from left and right in terms of additional strings attached, it looks like -

336 claim text - reexaminations - judge Word - HTC juries - HTC judge - current judge (same as HTC judge) - defendent lawyers of current case - 336 reexamination requests

Since current judge gave very similar construction as given by defendent lawyers, the power is shifted extremely to the right. Since the current judge handled the 336 case before and changed his construction further to the right from HTC case, if he is the one to deside this case, one can imagine what the outcome will be. Remember that we won the HTC case becuase juries did not religiously follow his CC and jury instruction, which shifted the power to the left somewhat (we were still took a big hit in damage reward as the result.)

Our laywers certainly knew this picture of power struggle, otherwise the PTSC PR won't came out during stock trading hours, and apposing the judge openly: "Patriot believes the report and recommendation, which are inconsistent with the claims construction issued by the same court in which a jury previously found infringement of the '336 patent against HTC Corporation, is in error.", and also added a thread to appeal.

It is amazing to see a single judge can throw out an overwhelming accepted knowlege made by inventers, USPTO examinners, laywers/engineers of 100 plus companies who bought the right to use 336, including CPU chip designers like Intel, AMD, HP, Sony, fujitsu and others.

In my precious post that includes some analysis of CC and jury instructions of HTC case. I pointed out some weird sematic that made juries very confused. Was it an accident? There is a saying that if you do not hold the truth, you use weird sematics to argue. I sincerely hoped it was an innocent error that time, but now, do you think we have to look at it differently.