InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 2
Posts 289
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/22/2006

Re: None

Tuesday, 12/11/2012 9:17:58 AM

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:17:58 AM

Post# of 23262
We (((LOST))) the claim on the ring oscillator in the 2nd Markman. Even though we lost, it may still be good enough to win our infringement cases. (( we have no way to know accept wait and see))

Anyone that can read, can see it, but they don't want to see it.

There was a reason TPL wanted it without restriction and Judge Ward (at the friendly Texas Court) gave it to us, just hope the new version doesn't come back to bite us.

In the prior Texas action, Judge Ward construed “ring oscillator” as “an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop.”

Plaintiffs’ Construction:

An oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop, wherein the oscillator is: (1) noncontrollable; and (2) variable based on the temperature, voltage, and process parameters in the environment.

TPL’s Construction:

An oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop

Judge Grewal's Ruling:
an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop, wherein the oscillator is variable based on the temperature, voltage and process parameters in the environment

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CPMV News