Catching up, but had to respond to this:

"

• The plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the case (i.e., that the patent in issue is valid and infringed). [I think we win this one]
• The plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the injunction is not issued. [I don't think we can prove this]
• The threatened harm to the plaintiff outweighs the harm the injunction may inflict on the defendant.
• [I don't think we can prove this]
• The injunction will serve the public interest. [this one is more like "no way"]

I don't think we stand a chance on an injunction."

IMO, all this items you suggest are "no goes" are arguable.

Examples:

Irreparably harmed - We have business plans (and, in PTSC's case, shareholders) that cannot be executed until the monies due are paid. Not only does this impact non-patent-oriented business activities, but failure to pay will impact all future negotiations with other infringers, e.g., our negotiation position will be seriously impaired potentially resulting in having to accept 10% of we could otherwise achieve from other infringers - accepting such amount to remain viable business entities. This constitutes irreparable harm, in that after settling for ten cents on the dollar with other infringers, we could not revisit those infringers at a later date. Our only other option would be to cease all negotiations with others until the instant situation with the Js is resloved, thus placing our businesses in jeopardy.

Threatenned harm - As per the above, our very business is threatenned, while the defendants could continue business everywhere else in the world, including their country of origin, i.e., the defendants could remain viable business entities, while we may not.

Public Interest: Such action would serve the public interest in that the rights we have secured and validated via our legal system would be upheld - the very basis of our society. And the public interest would in no way be harmed, as there are a multitude of comparable products to those of the Js readily available in the US marketplace - and from infringers that have secured licenses.

I'm an idiot, and I came up with the above. Smart people (our team) could do much better. IMO, an injunction is possible (but is in no way a slam-dunk).

JMHO, and I KNOW nuttin'! Except "never say never" (or "always").

SGE