Re: imo, Why TPL attorneys didn't want the case to go to trial.
in response to
by
posted on
Apr 18, 2008 06:03PM
Mike,
You are on the right track, I have felt the same way for sometime.
Posted by: CenturyCom on January 30, 2008 08:17PM
In response to: Re: One Thing Jim Turley CA... by TOMMEEEK
Thanks for responding. I'll go one step farther. IMO it was us that did not want to go to court. We had a successful markman ruling and it seemed we had the upper hand, but the remaining issue of validity, if decided by the court, would have removed our great advantage of an ex-parte reexamination by the USPTO. The J's could appeal any unfavorable decision the court makes...not so with the reexam. The J's could argue their case in court....not so with a reexam. We could have lost a huge advantage by having the court determine validity. Why take a chance? Now the question is...What and how much did we give up for a settlement? As much as I wanted to nail them to the wall, I think we did the smart thing for the long range big picture. P.S. I have not sold one share of my holdings in PTSC. But I call them the way I see them. ------------------------------------...
Now think about this: The key issues are: 1) the terms "granted rights" and "Business resolution" I have felt for some time that we entered into a business relationship with the J's ------------------------------------... Re: Banosser, Lambert, etc.Posted by: CenturyCom on December 19, 2007 01:44AM In response to: Banosser, Lambert, etc. by Poker MVP
|