For one thing, one does file a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) just because it is available. If granted, it is a severe remedy because it "guts" the other party's case and, in litigation in which a jury has been requiested, as in the present matter, it deprives that party of the right to have the jury make the decision. Although probably granted more often in federal court than in state court, it still isn't like "falling off a log".
In this particular case, I suspect that TPL did not file an MSJ after the Markman ruling from Judge Ware because that ruling was obviously incomplete as to the '336. Until today, I would have expected to see an MSJ filed after the ruling from Judge Grewal last week, but, as alluded to in my post earlier this morning, I would now expect TPL to wait and see whether HTC asks for further review, and, if so, the result of that.
Remember, it doesn't take much to overcome an MSJ --- all one needs to do is to create a valid dispute of material fact, and/or of expert opinion, and the motion will be denied. As a result, it would be a waste of time to file the motion prior to significant upcoming events in the case --- by doing so, you risk a court ruling that may be decided different than you think, or you show your cards too far in advance and your opponent knows what to do in order to defeat you.
Hope this helps.
