You have to laugh at this comedy.IMO plaintiffs were facing SJ and the only way to avoid/delay was to have their experts declare that Talbot is a ring oscillator.It seems that argument came the day of the Markman hearing not in the briefs.Then if you read plaintiffs arguments as to why more briefs, declarations and depositions are needed, it is because there isn’t any clear evidence that Talbot contains a ring oscillator.

Court says the following in the Markman results.

<During the course of these claim construction proceedings, the inventors have continued to maintain that Talbot was overcome during reexamination because it does not disclose a “ring oscillator.”>

<the Court has received extrinsic evidence that the voltage-controlled oscillator disclosed in Talbot is a ring oscillator.>

Now I’m fairly confident that our experts said Talbot wasn’t and their experts said it was.How else would the court get such an idea?

In the plaintiffs argument for more briefs, declarations and depositions please take note of the underlined portion.

TPL’s proposal set forth below is simply to have the parties submit additional briefs with attached declarations, and no prior exchange of declarations and no depositions to narrow the issues. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this proposal will likely result in an evidentiary record substantially the same as the one the Court has before it now, which led the Court to request further briefing. Simply directing the parties to submit supplemental briefs with competing expert declarations, without the benefit of a prior exchange and depositions, may leave the Court with a substantially impaired ability to resolve potential disputes on complex technical issues. For example, with respect to the “ring oscillator” term, the experts may take different positions on whether or not the voltage-controlled oscillator disclosed in Talbot is a ring oscillator. Allowing each party to depose its opponent’s declarants will provide the Court with an evidentiary basis to resolve the remaining disputes.

That is one heck on an example!The only reason they are not facing SJ right now is this phony claim that Talbot contains a ring oscillator.Is the underlined portion suggesting that our experts are now going to agree that Talbot contains a ring oscillator?Or are they suggesting that their experts may change their minds and argue something different than the claim which got them the delayed 336 SJ?Laughable, imo.

Opty