I understand, as Ron clearly points out, filing for summary judgement can be a tactic and possibly a wise one in this case. I'm not so concerned that Barco is saying they don't infringe. I'm concerned about the facts they are presenting about why they don't think they do. They are asking, where are TPL's facts?
This statement in my opinion may be the most damaging: The co-inventor of the ‘336 Patent, Charles Moore, admitted that it is not possible to tell from the mere presence of a phase-locked loop (PLL) if a circuit contains the on-chip clock of the invention: Exh. Q, Dep. Of Charles Moore, TPL v. Matsushita, 2-05CV-494 (TJW).
Note the reference to the deposition given by Moore in the Matsushita case(J3). We all know how that case came to a screeching halt, resulting in minimal benefits for our side.
Another statement they made also seems to be of concern. Where is the "ring osillator variable speed clocking device" on the accused infringing products?
I certainly am waiting for a strong response from TPL refuting these claims.
You know it really doesn't matter how many licenses we've sold, this case is in court.
GLAL
