The more stuff you throw on the wall, the more stuff that will stick. We've already been down the road in the J3 case and the conclusion we all came to was, we settled because we didn't want the court to validate the patents, better to have the USPTO decide it. What is going to happen this time with the T3 if we get to that point again and there still is no re-exam conclusion. Are we this time going to let the court decide? Will the court stay, until the re-exam is complete?I wouldn't think so. We are better off in California, and better off to have these additional patents to contend with because, as it stands now, we need to stall until we get re-validated. That is really all that matters. We won an over-whelming victory in the Markman. We have proved infringement, once we are validated we can start to write substanial contracts. While that money is coming in we can sue if need be on any remaining patents where infringement has not been litigated. If you are someone besides the J3 who use our technology in the same manner as the J3 did, I think you will strongly consider settling once the re-exam is completed in our favor. I believe the T3 sued us because they wanted to force us to settle for peanuts before validation.Remember they stated that they did indeed infringe. As we approach trial with no validation we will again have a decision to make, they know this because it has already happened once. Adding these additional patents to the case will put more pressure on the plaintiffs, buy us more time for the re-exam. More stuff on the wall, more money to lose for them. Something else for them to think about, more uncertainty on their part, and motivation to react.

JMO