Regarding interpretation of the “148, the total top surface area of the substrate, or how the court construed the claim, IMO is how our patent depicts the substrate and space allocated for cpu, memory, etc. A substrate (think 3 dimensional) has 6 sides, top, bottom, plus 4 sides. The court construed the claim to mean, “Total Top Surface Area of the Substrate” NOT “Total Surface Area of the Substrate”. See the difference? If the defendants can prove that they manufacture a chip that has less than 50% of the total top surface area of the substrate dedicated to memory, than they win. Obviously they can’t or they wouldn’t be arguing for outermost edges of the substrate which would include edges for all 6 sides. JMO, but I believe we won this one..hands down. Hopefully this post includes the image from our patent, as I am unable to view my post before submitting it. GLTAL

c. “total area of said single substrate” or “total area of said substrate” The plaintiffs propose “the total surface of the supporting material upon or within which is formed an interconnected array of circuit elements.” The defendants propose “area enclosed by the outermost edges of the substrate.” This term is used in the context of memory which is claimed to occupy “a majority” of the “total area” of the substrate. The issue is what constitutes the “area.” The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ proposal would include areas of the substrate that are not being actively used (e.g., the sides and back of the substrate). According to the plaintiffs, the proper approach is to refer to the portion of the substrate that has active circuitry as depicted in Figure 9 of the ‘148 patent. The area of the substrate refers to the top portion of the substrate, and not the sides or back. See ‘148 patent, Fig. 9. The Court construes the term to mean “the total top surface area of the

substrate.”