Since I've read the majority of both proposed claim constructions from the T3 (Plaintiff) and TPL (Defendant) and I have yet to see a post discussing the proposed claim constructions, I figured I would take a guess at what the central issue will be for the judge to make his ruling, at least with respect to the 336 and 148 (ring oscillator only). The other two patents deal with memory within a processor and those patents have yet to have their claims construed in a federal court, so there isn't a precedent to use as guidance to determine the central issues as is the case for the 336 and 148. Now that I have qualified my layman approach for analysis, I can continue with my layman interpretation of the disputed items at issue. IMO it boils down to statements the T3 believe TPL made during the reexaminations that should limit the scope of the claims that were previously construed by Judge Ward in the EDoT. It is that simple. TPL argues that the reexamination record where the PTO examiner was interviewed and believed TPL narrowed the scope of claims when TPL via Henneman was explaining how said patents were not obvious based on the prior art that was asserted against the 336 and 148. TPL cites two cases that explain the discussion and the T3 counter. Personally, I believe TPL has the better argument but I'm just a layman and we shall see. I believe there were a ton of claims construed during the Texas litigation. The ND of California via Judge Ware has limited the disputed terms to 10, which I think is very intelligent for obvious reasons. Here's to a very strong Markman. IMO if we can get the majority of terms construed in our favor it is game, set, match. Even if we get half I still think we have a chance depending on which terms we get. Time will tell. Posted from phone and format doesn't work well.