that Barco claims that the chips we have specified as infringing were not the chips used in the products that we claim infringe. Therefore a summary judgement could be issued on those products since they dont have the chips we have reversed engineered and subsequent claim of infringement. If so the summary judgement would not be a fatal blow to the MMP just the infringemnt case against Barco.

How could we be so incompetent to assert infringement of the MMP against products that don't have the chips that infringe on the MMP? The basic building blocks of the MMP do not make it hard to theoretically prove infringement. There are chip specs that TPL can obtain from the semiconductor manufacturers. Apparently TPL wants to go the full distance and pull apart products that they believe infringe and take pictures of the chips to show the variable speed ring osciallator, etc. They could rely on the chip specs but they are going the full distance to be absolutely certain in my opinion.

So, how did we identify the wrong chips? Are you saying it was an error on TPL's part? If so, ok, I understand and you are correct. We made a mistake and we would have to file again against Barco and make sure we are asserting the MMP against the products that contain chips that do infringe.

Otherwise, what you have stated is what Barco is arguing, which goes back to my other post about this being an all or nothing propostion. The variable speed ring oscialltor is like the transmission for machinery. It is in a huge amount of machinery (cars, etc), and if the Markman goes our way we will be in an excellent position to ask the manufacturers of all of that machinery to pay us. If the Markman does not go our way, it is, as Ron said, time to begin writing PTSC's obituary, and I suspect TPL's ability to license their portfolios will grind to a hald because I'm not convinced their proprietary portfolios are successful on their own. I seen them as way to syphon MMP dollars to Leckrone, but that is an issue to be addressed after the Markman IMO.