I wanted to add to this post and re our settlement in E Texas with the J3. I think the reason we settled was due to the dispute of what was a ring oscillator, not the generation of the signal. An oscillator that uses a Schmidt trigger is not a ring oscillator, but there were challenges to that idea and taking the validity question to jurors in E Texas about what was a "real" ring oscillator would've been risky as the examiners at the USPTO did initially accept the challenges against the 336. So we argued with the USPTO several times on multiple reexaminations and finally fully clarified what a ring oscillator equaled, and it equaled the ring oscillator in the 336. The last argument to make was that of what generates the clock signal? Is it the ring oscillator, or the 5 odd components of a PLL plus the external crystal? We just win the last argument and IMO there are no other arguments to be asserted. It is only a question of appeals, which IMO, the odds are greatly in our favor to win.