My recollection is that IF the Claims Construction were to stand as written, the parties essentially stipulated to non-infringment.  And there was a bit more specific language that had to do with the definition of the input signal, etc.  Can't, and really DON'T want to remember that kind of stuff, lol. Thath's why we appealed.

HOWEVER, since the entire CC is now vacated, I don't think there is any stipulation that applies any longer.  I assume our side will fight to re-define the objectionable language, while the other would fight to keep the important parts that would maintain the non-infringement intact.  However, since it's been vacated and remanded, and since there was such a major departure from what was previously constructed to what Grewall went to in this most recent one, I'd assume we'd go the extra mile to get back to what won us the case against HTC, and at the least, encourage settlements, rather than more legal machinations.