Sorry I am just responding, been extremely busy lately and will be for the next few months and am unable to keep up with the board. OK, gonna have to work from memory and dig through old files on this one as it has been a while since we discussed this, but IMO, the Forgent case is completely different than our situation because the defendant (Echostar) lost an earlier case to TiVo over a patent (US 6,233,389) that is very similar to the patent in dispute, Forgent (US 6,285,746).

Forgent sued Echostar for infringement on US 6,285,746, “Computer controlled video system allowing playback during recording” filed with the USPTO September 4, 2001. Echostar (DISH) won the lawsuit on grounds that the patent was invalid.

Echostar lost their lawsuit to TiVo in Marshall last year, and the patent in question in that lawsuit was TiVo’s US 6,233,389, “Multimedia Time Warping System” filed with the USPTO May 15, 2001. IMO, if you read both patents, it is obvious that Forgent’s patent is invalid as TiVo filed their “389 patent first, and essentially they both do the same thing. Echostar is very intimate with TiVo’s ‘389 patent being they just lost the lawsuit in 2006, so IMO that was an obvious play by Echostar’s legal team.

Also, on 5/17/07, TiVo filed suit against Forgent in the Northern California court. Here is an excerpt from the case; I had to type it as the doc was scanned in:

"All of the claims of the '746 patent currently stand rejected as being invalid under the United States patent laws. On October 26, 2006, the PTO rejected all five claims of the '746 patent on the grounds that they were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 and obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of numerous prior patents, patent applications, including a prior patent owned by TiVo."

So, what I believe we have here is a company (Echostar) that was sued by two companies, TiVo & Forgent, over two different patents that do essentially the same thing. TiVo’s patent “389 was issued prior to Forgent’s patent “746, and since Echostar lost their patent suit to TiVo, they were not going to also pay Forgent for the same claim.

The reason I believe that the Forgent vs. Echostar case has no bearing on our case is because I am not aware of any prior patent suits where the J3, ARM, or any company has  lost in court to a company with similar earlier issued patents (claims) as our “336, “148, and “584. Seems to me if that was the case than it would have already been mentioned, and we wouldn’t have had 19 some companies settle to date.

The above information doesn’t prove that there isn’t some form of prior art out there that could invalidate one or all of our claims, but IMO things are looking pretty good for us. At least that is my opinion therefore haven’t sold any of my shares. All of this is my opinion and I recommend you perform your own DD. Enjoy the rest of your weekend everyone. GLTAL