IMO, the Judge means what he says, i.e. that his statement applies to any judgment that may be rendered in the case.
Since the original complaint itself was filed as lawsuit for declaratory judgment (which was required because the T3 were the plaintiffs), there could ultimately be a judgment on the overall case after a trial on the merits. In that event, if it appears that none of the parties intend to ask for a pretrial judgment, the Judge would then issue a complete Markman opinion (defined as one that includes the underlying reasoning) at some point prior to the time that a judgment is rendered as a result of the trial proceedings.
Nevertheless, the Judge certainly knows that many Markman rulings result in motions for summary judgment, and that if such a motion is granted to the effect that infringement or noninfringement is determined, or validity is negated, an immediate appeal could then be pursued because this would also amount to a "declaration" of judgment. As a result, Judge Grewal is simply telling the parties that, in the event such motions are filed in the present matter, he will issue a complete Markman opinion so that both they and the Federal Circuit will have more insight into his thought process. Since it is a bit unusual for the Judge to have issued a "result only" Markman ruling, he is merely advising the parties that he will proceed to provide the underlying reasoning if such becomes necessary. Of course, if no such motions are filed and the case proceeds toward trial, he may do so anyway if it appears the case will not be settled.
The following is not directed at you, personally, opty, but I think lots of folks are putting far too much emphasis on the "complete Markman opinion" issue. The simple fact of the matter is that the Judge "inherited" this case when Judge Ware retired, and he (Grewal) has a busy scheduled of his own. As a result, rather than delaying his Markman decision, he decided to issue it in "result only" form --- that's all there is to it, and there is no hidden meaning or additonal substance.
The current status, assuming TPL is accurate in having advised that the T2 will not be asking for more claims construction, is that the Markman ruling issued on December 5 is final, and that it contains all of the information necessary for the parties to decide whether it would be advantageous to file motions for summary judgment. Should those motions be filed, we will then see a "complete" Markman ruling (one that doesn't change the constructions already provided, but which explains how the Judge arrived at same) prior to the time that any such motions result in judgment.
Best wishes to you and all.
