Assuming the ALJ denied the motion for leave by the Respondents to file a motion for summary determination, it is interesting the ALJ went against the Staff's recommendation to allow the motions as the Staff's argument was primarily based on the desire for a complete record of the facts. The ALJ denied the motion and was at least persuaded by TPL's agreed upon schedule argument. The simple answer and most likely is the ALJ agrees with the scheduling argument TPL presented. The more speculative views agree with the aforementioned schedule agreement, and could also get into how the ALJ thinks an MSD (MSJ) would be futile as hopefully he has already made up his mind in our favor regarding the Markman and by default the infringement contentions based on the Markman. Of course the opposite is also possible. Things should begin to heat up over the next month.