Wearing my rose-colored glasses, I see this as pure good news, sending multiple positive "messages" IMO. First, it suggests TPL is being very firm in its demands, and probably increase their demands over time due to positive events.

Think of what has probably happened over the last 14 months of "communications". They talk dollars, then we have the EDOT Markman success, and suddenly the dollars demanded may have increased. Further communications, then in Dec'07 the settlement with the Js, and suddenly the dollars demanded may have increased again (and possibly with every significant licensing over this period of time.

I find this comment from your patent attorney friend most interesting:

"A DJ action can be filed whenever there is a threat of impending litigation."

This, to me, suggests that our team may have threatened an injunction. I only think this because IMO this suit, filed by the opposition, introduces a battle that would have occurred anyway if our team were merely threatening a suit simto that against the Js. IMO, this approach only offers a marginal advantage over being sued by our team in that former fashion. But it is a much better thing than seeing us file for an injunction (which I see as a tier higher, with a very vivid advantage to us IMO, and a major impact to the opposition/T3).

As far as venue, I think it's pretty certain that our team will petition for a change to EDOT. And I believe it would be granted. Believe it or not, even Gov't agencies, including the court system, seek efficiencies. Put another way, what grounds would the CA court have to deny such petition?

So, IMO, the probable threat of injunction - another positive thing IMO. Play hardball.

Now consider this: As others have already opined, this may be our best indicator yet that the numbers from the Js will impress. And it may also provide a little insight re: what post-Js licensees (e.g., DTV) may have had to pay - and the possibility that they succumbed to the threat of injunction. Now, how many others are currently in this boat - a real threat of injunction hanging over their heads?

I do not see this as the introduction of any uncertianty or risk to us that didn't already exist. We're not being sued for money - we're not infringing anything. Though we have the "defendant" label, that's as far as that goes IMO.

JMHOs, with some ignorance thrown in - beyond "I KNOW nuttin'!".

Apologies for the color/font distraction.

SGE