Unfortunately there is legal precedent that allows for 'related' terms across 'related' patents to affect one another. So regardless of which patent contains the term, if the patents are related as they are in the MMP case because they stem from the same single application in the early 90s, the term, in this instance ring oscillator, is applicable to both the 148 and 336 patents. Long story longer, we can't 'abandon' the 148 to throw the dispute out the window. We would need to do the same with the 336 and for obvious reasons we won't. Hope that helps. The precedent I speak of is cited in the T3 claim construction arguments.