But this is where things get mixed up and confusing.

The SETTLEMENT will not include the '584, period. The '584 is no longer part of this litigation. The settlement will ONLY have to do with the '148 and the '336 - the patents currently being contested in the litigation.

Coupled with the settlement (but probably not necessarily presented to the court) will likely be a LICENSE, perhaps for the entire MMP, but also perhaps only for the '148 and '336. The license will cover FUTURE contemplated infringement (as TPL has been "foregiving" past infringement in all its licensing, and going for royalties for future infringement only - and there's probably some legal reason for them handling licensing in this way).

Now, based on this latest USPTO info graciously provided by Albie, the likelihood of the LICENSE being for the entire MMP, or for the '148 and '336 AND the '584 is greatly enhanced. But here you have to think about how the Js have acted to date. Do you think they are going to license ANYTHING before they absolutely have to?

As for Milestones thoughts on where Albie is coming from, they sound great (because they are). But did anyone expect anything less from TPL in their effort with the USPTO? Further, we KNEW that the USPTO takes court matters/results into consideration. Of course the USPTO will consider the Markman results in the re-exams of the '148 and the '336, and our standing on those patents is much stronger "going in" because of the Markman results (i.e., I have no fears).

In any case, I don't see where the USPTO action on the '584 has ANYTHING to do with the Js inclination to SETTLE on the '148 and '336 (they are different patents/circumstances, with a different USPTO examiner). Actually, regarding the SETTLEMENT, I don't see were anything going on at the USPTO on any of the patents will affect SETTLEMENT of the instant litigation (since I find it very difficult to expect anything to come from the USPTO regarding the '148 or '336 in the next week).

Thus, I still don't fully grasp Albie's contention that our team's input to the USPTO on the '584 is going to prompt SETTLEMENT (because it only has to do with the '148 and '336) OR a probable follow-on LICENSE with the Js (because nothing is conclusive as yet).

Hopefully this clarifies where I'm coming from and the situation as I see it. I do hope the license with the js following settlement of the '148/'336 litigation DOES include the entire MMP, as that would inherently strenghen our position in future litigation (with ARM) on the '584.

JMHOs, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE