First, thanks for some great posts and DD!

Now, I have to ask about: "None of the 3 attorneys thought the stay was ACP related."

Since someone caused some confusion on what the acronym "ACP" means in our context, I'm intending it to mean "Attorney/Client Priviledge". Assuming that meaning, you must have explained the whole NorCa/Higgins thing to them, and they didn't think that maybe JW ruled "covertly" on that (in our favor), prompting the Stay?

I just had to ask....as I sure think that a joint expedited ruling request would have been acted upon by JW (within the prior, what, 10 days), and I cannot fathom what else could have possibly been the catalyst for the joint Stay request (nor the Philips license, beyond perhaps being that wine's time).

Another subject from another post, there was apparently some discussion of what would be the best possible scenario. IMO, the best of all worlds would be:

1 - empasse on settlement negotiations

2 - our team files a MSJ immediately

3 - JW rules in our favor promptly (validating the patents virtually as well as a win at trial)

4 - Js settle (for max bucks sans trial, and without the threat of an appeal)

5 - All the above within a few days (here I'm pushing it!)

What's interesting to me is that, though I'm about as anxious as I can be to get this over with, if we get no news this weekend or Monday morn, IMO we'd be lining up for the above best case scenario. But I'll already be bouncing off the walls come 9:35 Monday morn! LOL

TIA for an answer to that question - the rest is for your consideration....recognizing that....

I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE