I don't disagree that those in litigation might get priority, however, I think the 18-24 months include those treated with priority, so why would these be an exception to that timing. On one side, you're posting how it IS important, important enough for Judge Ward to break with his tradition, and order a stay pending the results. Now your saying its not. Which is it? Frankly, if the USPTO were to rule in a truncated timeframe, considering the positive Markman ruling, it would likely go in PTSC's favor, IMO.

Secondly, while one patent may be all that's needed, PTSC/TPL are currently in litigation on TWO of them. The THIRD has been stipulated to be exempted from the current litigation which will allow the Markman constructs on that one to be appealed immediately instead of waiting for the conclusion of the trial. MORE IMPORTANTLY, the two that ARE in litigation have FAVORABLE Markman Constructs in support of PTSC/TPL. Furthermore, these Markman constructs ARE typically taken into account by the USPTO in their re exam process. So while only one is needed, emphasizing that discounts the FACT that PTSC/TPL is WINNING the battle on BOTH of the 2 in question, and had maneuvered it so they can contest the less than perfect Markman ruling on the third one more quickly than they would have if they hadn't made the stipulation to exempt it.