To get some hint on how the Judge was leaning, we can revisit the SD part -

SD - "The court agrees with HTC that the disputed limitations are properly understood to exclude any external clock used to generate a signal.24 Nevertheless, there remains a factual dispute whether HTC’s products contain an on-chip ring oscillator that is self-generating and does not rely on an input control to determine its frequency. While HTC’s expert says that the PLLs generate the clock, TPL’s expert counters that the ring oscillators generate the clock and the PLLs merely buffer or fix the frequency.25 This is a classic factual question that requires a trial to answer."

ORDER RE EMERGENCY MOTION - "Emergency Motion for Addendum to Jury Instructions. The parties appeared for a hearing earlier today. After considering the parties’ arguments the court rules as follows: The court’s final jury instructions will instruct the jury that the terms “entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock” (in claims 1 and 11), “entire oscillator” (in claims 6 and 13), and “entire variable speed clock” (in claims 10 and 16) are properly understood to exclude any external clock used to generate a signal."

Both orders have this language - "to exclude any external clock used to generate a signal".