I realize I was not as clear in the post I'm replying to as I should've been and it was brought to my attention via a PM indirectly, no one pointed it out but I now realize why there was a specific interpretation.

Let me be clear. In 2007/8 Judge Ward (Easter District of Texas) originally construed "Entire Variable Speed Clock" to "not directly rely" on an external crystal/clock generator to clock the microprocessor.

In both claim constructions by TPL and the T3 before Judge Ware (Determined in June 2012 - Northern District of California) both TPL and the T3 proposed "Entire Variable Speed Clock" to include "not directly rely" on an external crystal/clock generator to clock the microprocessor, but the disputed term before Judge Ware was whether or not the ring osciallator was "noncontrollable" and varied based on "Process, Voltage and Temperature (PVT)."

TPL won this claim construction from Judge Ware as the he construed the term to be what TPL is asking for at the ITC currently and Judge Ware did not include the "noncontrollable" and "PVT" verbiage. But, I should add that Judge Ware required further briefing on the ring oscillator construction to better understand the opposing parties' claim construction where TPL wanted Judge Ward's ring oscillator construction verbatim - "an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop" - and the T3 wanted to include "noncontrollable" and varied based on "PVT" for the ring oscillator construction.

In the ring oscillator claim construction before Judge Grewal (Determined in December 2012 - Northern District of California), he ruled that ring oscillator means "an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop, where it is dependant on "PVT", but Judge Grewal ruled that "noncontrollable" should not be part of the construction.

Now we are at the ITC before Judge Gildea (April 2013 - Washington, D.C.) and Judge Gildea ruled very, very closely to what Judge Ward (2007/8 - Eastern District of Texas) ruled back in 2007. Judge Gildea ruled exactly what Judge Ward ruled for ring oscillator - ""an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop" and Judge Gildea ruled very closely to Judge Ward for the "Entire Variable Speed Clock", where Judge Gildea changed "does not directly rely" to "does not rely" and he changed a portion of the "command input" to "control signal" (I believe the command and control portion is accurate but it doesn't matter). These changes that Judge Gildea made do not impact the construction at all as Judge Gildea specifically stated in his construction ruling, one who is skilled in the art would not distinguish between "does not directly rely" and "does not rely" as being substantive or meaningful. The same applies to the "command input" to "control signal" terms, not being substantive or meaningful.

So, what does all of this mean. IMO, we are right back to where we were in the Eastern District of Texas. We have gone through reexaminations, etc., and nothing has changed and I believe this is confirmed by the reports coming out of the SHM, where Jim Otteson or Leckrone said Judge Gildea (ITC) tracked very closely to Judge Ward (Texas). And he did and I say that based off of the constructions and reading a ton of the documents.

Granted, going through the USPTO probably prevented other attack angles against the MMP where they were more easily defensible at the USPTO due to ex parte reexaminations, where the only parties involved were the USPTO examiner and TPL.

20/20 hindsight - Why did we settle with the J3? Did we not want to risk presenting in front of a Jury? Or was the external crystal issue a problem from the beginning? 100 licenes later, I am having a very hard time reconciling all of these issues. A professional makes the decision at the ITC (Judge Gildea) instead of a jury, like in Texas or California. I don't know the outcome.

Microprocessors - Do today's microprocessors use a ring oscillator that relies on an external source (crystal, etc) to clock the CPU?

The Microprocessor question is the most important right now. The Respondents (Big Companies) are arguing the ring oscillator clocks rely on an off chip crystal to clock the CPU. We are saying they do not.

What will Judge Gildea decide?