This guy doesn't have his thinking cap on.

The EDoT has a demonstrated track record on NOT delaying cases due to any USPTO review.

More importantly, this person is ignoring logic.

Who is "closest" to the USPTO in this/these reviews? That would be our team - our guys have a better handle on how things are going with the review than ANYONE.

Our team agreed to the motion for the stay. Now, if there was any thought that the USPTO review results would become known during this 30 day period, and that those results would be negative in any way, why in the world would our team agree to the stay?

I for one believe that the Judge ruled "covertly" about ACP in our favor, and that was the catalyst for the stay, and settlement talks in earnest. IMO, if the Judge hadn't ruled, the Js had no real incentive to change course, agree to the stay, or anything - we'd be headed for a trial.

If the Judge had ruled, but not in our favor, the decision would have immediately been appealed.

Jumping back a bit, assuming the Judge did rule on the ACP in our favor, and our team knew that the USPTO review results were forthcoming and not in our favor, they wouldn't have agreed to a stay, they instead would have filed a MSJ (get this over with quick).

This is how I reason it through. A little scattered, but if you put the logic pieces together, there is virtually no way the stay has anything directly to do with USPTO action. That doesn't keep the review results from possibly coming during this timeframe.

Hope this makes as much sense to others as it makes to me....

SGE