CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by PDS

With respect to the disclaimer “whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal”, the Federal Circuit explained what the Court’s wording “encapsulates.” The Federal Circuit explained that (1) “the ‘entire oscillator’ must be a variable frequency oscillator rather than a fixed-frequency crystal,” and (2) “the ‘entire oscillator’ cannot require an external crystal or frequency generator.” The explanation from the Federal Circuit provides clarity surrounding Judge Grewal’s construction that should guide both the Parties and this Court going forward. The problem with Judge Grewal’s construction as it applied to PDS’s infringement theories dealt with the portion of the construction that prevented the entire oscillator from “requir[ing] a control signal.” This is the portion of the construction that was altered by the Federal Circuit. The “entire oscillator” is part of a system known as a phase locked loop. This system supplies a control signal to the oscillator to regulate the frequency of the oscillator. The Federal Circuit modified this construction to now prohibit the oscillator from requiring a command input to change frequency. This is a much more limited disclaimer. Based on this narrowed disclaimer, PDS’s case can continue. Further, while the disclaimer requiring the frequency of the entire oscillator not be fixed by an external crystal was not changed, the Federal Circuit’s clarifying comments about this disclaimer are also helpful to PDS’s case.

.

would've liked to've seen this about 5 yrs ago...