<Under the doctrine of intervening rights, if TPL substantively amended claims 6 and 10 during the reexamination of the ’336 patent, TPL is only entitled to recover damages for alleged infringement occurring after the completion of the reexamination.>

I think you were highlighting the wrong phrase. The above captures what is important as explained below.

but in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical, such surrender shall not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing, and the reissued patent, to the extent that its claims are substantially identical with the original patent, shall constitute a continuation thereof and have effect continuously from the date of the original patent.

Now read the following. Does it not claim that the current wording of the amended claim is exactly what Judge Ward's construction would necessitate requiring? Wouldn't that be substantively identical?

Plaintiffs’ Construction TPL’s Construction a clock signal from said off-chip external clock is initially generated by a different source than said variable speed clock a clock signal of said off-chip external clock is generated by a different source than said variable speed clock TPL’s proposed construction, requiring the second clock, external clock, and off-chip clock to be “generated” by a different source than the variable speed clock, accords with the patent’s premise that the ring oscillator clock and second clock be “independent.” Judge Ward construed “system clock” and “variable speed clock” as “a circuit that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.” Ward Order, 13; Mar Dec., Ex. A. Plaintiffs agreed to this construction. JCCS Ex. A, Row 27. It follows then that the clock signal for the second clock, which the patent teaches is “independent,” should be “generated by a different source than said variable speed clock,” as TPL proposes (and as multiple reexaminations of the ‘336 patent have confirmed).

Opty