"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."

I believe Ease is correct about this being the main issue of claim construction. The T3 as I read it, claim TPL said or claimed one thing to Judge Ward to get his positive Markman ruling in TX. and said or claimed something different to get the Patent Office to recertify the patent. What I don't understand is this. How is what they said to each party actually conflicting. Can anybody elaborate on the differences?

Corrections welcome.