1. Which I believe is that the phased warrant buy-back by Oct is part of an overall posturing for something to either occur between now and Oct (thus benefitting S&L if it's earlier in the timeframe, as their holdings will in essence be of greater value), or shortly after the 1st of Oct. 

2. I posted the other day how things might just be lining up for "something". There's the Turley pitch in NYC in early Sept.  But the better coincidence, that may or may not be of any consequence, is that the warrant buy-back is to be complete at the same basic time that mediation is currently scheduled to be complete.

3. Ron said earlier that there really isn't anything hanging over the Js heads to create a sense of urgency, but later in that post, he qualified (I believe) with "until mediation is over".

4. So far, our team has appeared to be nothing but cooperative with the court.  The recent filing from a defendant blasting our team for certain supposed failures has been proven (to my satisfaction) to be just a lot of hot air based on reality per the thoughtful/researched post by Deb (I believe).  Certainly the court will also recognize this.

5. Though I had hoped for our team to file a motion for SJ after the positive Markman results (at least on the '148 and '336), I can see why our team would hold off for mediation to be completed before taking that action to stay in the good graces of the court.  And if mediation were successful, the motion would be unnecessary.

6. But the perceived posturing for early Oct, coupled with mediation to be completed by that time, suggests the possibility that our team may file for SJ after unsuccessful mediation (assuming that outcome, and if mediation is successful, that date is still meaningful for posturing).

7. IMO a filing for SJ will prompt settlement, at least on the '148 and '336, by the Js.  The '584 may be simply a moot issue until the planned appeal process is complete.  The motion for SJ may be enough to prompt the settlement action by the Js, if not, and the Judge grants the motion, THAT should be a strong prompt to settle (unless the Js were foolish enough to risk the possible damages that may be awarded, and may be tripled).

8. Thus, I have high hopes for Oct. 

9. But why, if the above holds any water and is "the plan", would our team push for the continuance?  I don't see how they could avoid it, as they don't have absolute assurance that the Judge would grant a motion for SJ against the Js.

10. The only thing that does dampen my speculation is that our team still has a lot of work to do as part of Discovery.  How big is the infringement by the Js?  But do you really need to KNOW that exact data to enable effective settlement negotiations?  IMO, no.  The Js KNOW.  And all parties KNOW it's big.  The other thing that supports at this speculation is that the complete date for mediation has not (yet) been changed/pushed again in light of the granted continuance for trial.  Did I miss it?  If so, my high hopes for Oct. are largely dashed....

11. And then there is the 800lb. gorilla in the room.  That being ARM and the '148 and '336.  If memory serves, one of us did the research on ARM patent filings to find that ALL but two reference the '148 and '336 (I don't recall who it was that posted this interesting info, but whoever it was, please step forward and take a bow, and accept my kudos! Also, please correct my recollection as necessary.).  With the possibility that the '584/ARM be permitted to enter the appeal process (Ward granting the stipulated judgement), what should ARM and our team do about the '148 and '336, if anything?  Would this event be an appropriate time for ARM to settle on those patents?  Would the above-discussed motion for SJ to the Js on these patents be the prompt?  The granting of that motion?  As I have posted before, ARM and the '148/'336 is a perplexing situation - the seeming disregard for these patents in ARM's involvement in Texas.  Is it acknowledged infringement?  If so, would it be smarter for ARM to settle on those before anything nasty happens regarding those patents and the Js?  Does our team see something happenning with ARM, near term, that has influenced the posturing action I suspect is going on?

So there's my novel for the weekend.  Comments are solicited. I numbered the paragraphs for ease of reference.  Pick at it towards refinement or dismissal - please!

As always, I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE