Thanks for boiling that down to nuts-and-bolts in plain (and respectful) English.

Regarding PTO vs jury determination - you say that " Had we gone forward and won at trial, we would have conclusively proven infringement which would have brought all the other companies to their knees. "

From Ron's previous postings, I understand that the jury would determine both validity and infringement. In the Forgent case, the defendants essentially conceded infringement, and contested the case on validity only. The jury found the patents invalid, and Forgent (who also had a very favourable Markman) got nothing.

In our case, validity is also the primary source of contention. The J3 lawyers were certainly basing their strategy on challenging validity. Infringement, when already conceded by 40+ companies, is much harder to explain away to jury and

If the PTO review is favourable, then we have claims construction and patent validity rulings in our favour from two impeccable sources, and 40+ international licencees happily using our patented technology. This has got to be a stronger position than we were in December, where there was a sizeable downside to risking everything. Why take the risk now when the risk will be substantially reduced in the near future.

Of course, this is litigation strategy and not enhancing shareholder value in any way whatsoever - that's what you get for letting the lawyers run the show. Now, maybe when the lawyers are the shareholders, then the risk/reward balance will swing in our favor...