Are you leaving open the possibilities that the USPTO re-exam and/or the non-disclosure issue figure in the mix somewhere?

As has been posted often, the Judge is highly unlikely to grant a stay pending USPTO re-exam, more so this far into the case.

By "non-disclosure issue", I'll take that to mean the ACP motions. Can you see a judge asking both sides to submit a joint stay motion in order for him to make up his mind as to how to rule?

On this basis, I'm not leaving open those possibilities.

 Or was it an IMO without the 'IMO'?

All my posts, unless given a citation, are either IMHO or IMVHO.

I take all questions as friendly - fire away.

Be well