We are a step closer, or we jumped another hurdle, depending on how you view the technology. We still have to argue the "Entire ..." issue during trial, but the combined 900 MSD pages submitted by the Respondents that undoubtedly covered the very same arguments that will be addressed during the trial was denied in its entirety. The judge apparently does not buy the manner by which the Respondents are characterizing the way phase locked loops (PLLs) are used in microprocessor designs, otherwise he would've granted the MSD.

Here we go!

If we really have the goods, and I've placed my bet that we do, I am having a hard time understanding how the litigation issue is resolved. How can these multi-billion dollar companies allow some of their most popular products be banned from the most lucrative market on the planet?

Let me explain why I ask the question above. At the company I work at, we have business continuity/contigency plans where we have spent 10s of millions of dollars to ensure our IT infrastructure will survive disasters. The company headquarters is located on the east coast and we have planned for earthquakes, etc., which are highly, highly unlikely where we work. Nevertheless, we plan for it. I am having a very difficult time understanding if we have the goods, how can these companies truly put at risk products that could generate over 10% of their entire generated revenue without offering substantial dollars to TPL to get out of the trial?

The CEOs of the respective companies at risk have certainly been briefed about the exposure they might have by the 336 patent. This has most certainly been communicated to the top levels of all Respondent companies.

I know there is insurance for large corporations that have IP exposure, which could be a possible explanation. Also, most of these companies have deep pockets to offer top dollar for a license. Others?

If this was not an important time at work for me I would seriously consider taking two weeks off from work and sitting in on the trial if I were allowed inside.

Jim Otteson has been right so far. We are at trial. He believes he can proove infringement. Obviously, no one in his position would say anything different, although we do have 100 licenses under our belt.

Interesting times ...