milestone - Forgive me if you've already posted this, but if you have any further thoughts on whether or not the entire settlement from the J2.5 was contained in the 10Q would be interesting for some of us to peruse. Thanks.

I believe that any payments due from the J2.5 during the period of the 10Q were fully accounted for, that is not to say that I am satisfied that Judge Ward is retaining supervision of a MOU which could be so quickly fulfilled.

The "with prejudice" ruling means that TPL/PTSC can not litigate the same patents again with the J2.5 as defendants. Had there been a simple license agreement, there would be no need of a MOU. Logic therefore dictates additional terms which, given that the J2.5 can't be sued again for infringement on the '336/'148, are favorable to PTSC/TPL.

In conclusion, I do not believe that the J2.5 have made a full and final settlement.

Be well