excerpt from todays (?) pacer, from another board.

Will there be now a new case against Samsung etc...?

(because there was stipulation of non-infringement?)

Is the minor change a big one in a new case on the 336`?

This is on Magar prior art:
We hold that the district court’s
narrowing construction based on Magar—“whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal”—properly encapsulates
the patentee’s disclaiming statements.
We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire
oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any
external crystal.”

This is on Sheets:

We hold that an “entire oscillator” is one “that does
not require a command input to change the clock frequency.”

This is the appeals court judges conclusion:

III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED