Good points, and the surprise of seeing a slew of posts that are actually about PTSC!

On this USPTO conjecture - awaiting a decision being the reason for the stay - IMO this holds little water.  IF the USPTO identified a problem with the '148 or '336, what would most likely be the next step in their re-exam process?  Here we learn from the '584.  My understanding is that if the USPTO identifed a problem, the patent holder must be granted an ex parte review.  On the '584, how long has the ex parte review been in process?  The ONLY difference is that the '584 failed the test of the Markman.  The '148 and '336 did not fail that test.  So if my understanding is wrong, and an ex-parte review is not mandatory, considering the Markman results on the '148 and '336 (vice the '584), would it not be expected and more than justifiable to grant an ex-parte review?

With the above reasoning, I seriously doubt that the stay has much if anything to do with the USPTO.  IF they were to question one/both of the patents, this issue will not be resolved, and won't be for months to a year.  Not until the re-exam is fully complete.

And here I'll mention again that, IMO, we only need one valid/solid patent to prosper.

JMHOs,

SGE