In my opinion it is valid... although I think using the words "work around" as you have presents an incorrectly negative view of what the patent office view was, and of what they did in correctly finding CLYW had extablished fully valid new claims.
I think CLYW owns seamless switching... not only for the basic reasons re the fundamental validity of the patent (only within limits that make it not controlling of the things it claims)... but for the practical reason that you need to do what CLYW owns in order to "make it work"... SEAMLESSLY. IMO, the limits in the language in definition in the patent are not a "work around" to "sneak it in" as valid, but barely ... rather than a requirement to properly define the function that CLYW intended to define... which they do own.
The patent appears that it intended to and does control the ability to define the range/zone in which "seamlessness" is able to be made possible... that's what the patent claims... and that't the claim that it was awarded for...
Mathmatically, you could say that its a function of derivatives... CLYW doesn't own the basic distance determination function in the use of the raw signal data or its use in the first derivative... determining what signal strength IS... but, they do own its use in determining any offset distance in the second derivative function that enables defining that "pre-set" zone in which seamlessness in switching is possible to enable. That's why I previously said a first use of distance didn't infringe, but, a second use of distance in the math would...
The units in which the distance is applied in the function in the math being computed... isn't the issue... it is the practical use of the function that is the issue... not the wizardry in its computation by routine or esoteric means...
I think there was a consious effort being made to sew confusion that would divorce the "functions in the math" occurring in different uses of the signal data, from the reality in their use in practical application...
And, "pre-set" doesn't require that it must be automatically determined by the system or fixed inside the device in a way that can't be changed by a user, although it may be, but, it might also be "set" by a user... allowing a user to select a preset distance / setting in the function in his own device... to make it work the way he wants... when he determines the zone that works... or that within which he wants to enable the function.
The patent clearly did not intend to limit the utility... rather than maximize the utiity within the limits of what is claimed and made obvious by the patent.
A range inside some metric for signal strength or quality... is still a RANGE... a distance... defined from a term that also uses another first distance metric... with a second use to define that zone inside of the first in which the function is made possible.
CLYW doesn't own the ability to define a first range... which might be used as a base from which some other range based calculation is determined... or any of the other uses that might be of it. What they do own is the ability to use that first ability in enabling an computed offset from that first measure that also defines "seamlessness" in switching...
Will be very interesting to see if the court gets the basic facts and dependencies in the math/science/engineering bits right... in parsing what it was that the math/science/engineering whizzes in the patent office were intending to and did allow... or if they get suckered into accepting any of the bogus and purposeful errors being made by the attorneys...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
