I will bet we see the ruling within the next 2 to 8 weeks. I am hopeful that the entire disavowal issue - essentially narrowing the meaning of the claims via the reexamination process - regarding the ring oscillator (336) that includes a "non-controllable" term, and Talbot, Magar and Sheets prior art. The T3 argue TPL disavowed parts of the invention during their discussion regarding the differences of all prior art with the PTO examiner. The T3 claim TPL made statements during the reexamination that narrowed the scope of the claims and those terms, or concepts, being disputed in the Markman should get new definitions if they were already construed by Judge Ward in Texas.

I am hopeful that Judge Ware will review the "invention" (336) in its entirety and see that any disavowal statements the T3 alleges TPL made during the reexamination process were taken completely out of context with respect to the overal concept, which IMO the concept is sound. Also, the TPL has know about the "attack vector" of the T3 for literally years now. At least since 2008, so they have had a lot of time to review how they wanted to approach the PTO and avoid all of the proverbial land mines.

The overall concept electrical engineering concept, 90+ licensees and 250+ million dollars, and a prior Markman will hopefully be enough to sway Judge Ware to TPL's side regarding the 336.

This is a highly technical legal issue at this point and Judge Ware has to read the reexamination prosecution history to make absolutely certain his ruling on disavowal is correct.

Lastly, it is nice to see rampant speculation at a minimum, although I'm sure I just poked the "chipmunk".