It appears from the site you posted the ITC determinations can be updated/changed by the appellate court. Let's hope we can get the commission to change Judge Gildea's ID at thr ITC. ----------------------------- Nanobits or anyone else who attended the HTC portion of the trial, did HTC's attorneys argue during the trial that the ring oscillator "relied on the external crystal to generate the clock signal?" I'm assuming HTC did make that argument as the jurors had asked a question about what "generates" means, and HTC was able to add jury "instruction" 18 related to the CPU clock signal generation not relying on the external crystal. It stands to reason if HTC made that argument and the jury STILL decided in our favor, then the two venues between the NDoC and ITC essentially had the same argument regarding infringement. At the core of both disputes was whether the ring oscillator relied on the crystal to generate the clock signal and whether or not the ring oscillator varied based on PVT. We won both arguments at the NDoC and I believe the late jury instruction additions by HTC converged both venues into the same de facto Markman. I am very hopeful the six member ITC commission will see Judge Gildea was mistaken. One of the possible issues are the type of products, which for HTC, are different between the NDoC and the ITC. Hopefully the ITC will recognize virtually all PLLs infringe and just rule in our favor to put this to rest, or we will have to take this to the CAFC (federal appellate court). We may appeal for damages although I'm not sure how worthy a pursuit that would be. Looking forward to getting more information.