The remaining question, of course, centers around the wording in
Folsom's Order, and what significance, if any, it might hold with
respect to the MOU that some love to fantasize about. So, with this
in mind, I found a few spare minutes yesterday and took it upon
myself to call the Court and speak with someone, who I will refer to
simply as "Bill", who is knowledge about court procedures and about
the Folsom Order. Frankly, I had drawn up a much more lengthy post
about all of this, but I realized that giving a "nuts and bolts"
explanation would only create more incentive for the spinners to go
wild (as if they haven't already). Therefore, I will just say that
Bill told me pretty much what I had already concluded, which is that,
as far as he knows, the sole intent and purpose of Folsom's Order was
to transfer all of the T3 cases to Ward due to his prior experience
with the MMP patents — very simple and clean, no "code" being
spoken, no "hidden messages" being sent about MOUs or anything else.

For those concentrating on the word "pending", please also remember
that all of the J3 cases were formally DISMISSED in December 2007.
The significance of such is that a case that has been dismissed is
NOT thereafter "pending", simply because it no longer exists —
some folks seem to love to misstate that Judge Ward is continuing
to "monitor" a dismissed case, which is plainly inaccurate. The
Order of Dismissal expressly states only that the Court "retains
jurisdiction" (NOT "continues to monitor") to enforce the Agreement
(and thus the MOU), which, by definition, means in the event
enforcement should become necessary — should that occur, then the
likelihood is that a new complaint would be filed for "breach of the
Agreement", and the new complaint/action would then be "pending".

Conversely, it is highly unlikely that a dismissed action could be
brought back to life. I do not know of any federal court rule that
provides for such, because it would produce a terrible
contradiction — no action could ever truly be
considered "dismissed" if it could always "come back from the dead".
Even a "dismissal without prejudice" requires the subsequent filing
of a new complaint, albeit dealing with prior subject matter. In
short, a case that has been dismissed by agreement between the
parties is simply no longer "pending" (a case dismissed by judgment
could still be considered "pending" if it is thereafter appealed,
such as with the ARM appeal, but that is not the same as a dismissal
by settlement, which cannot be appealed).

In any event, the bottom line, IMO, is that the T3 cases are all
being assigned to Ward for the simple reason stated above —
which, in turn, means that the MOU is, as it has always been, a non-
issue. My expectation, as expressed in my post #1786 in this forum
(written before the Folsom Order), is that, in the not too distant
future, we will see Judge Ward grant the motion that has now been
filed by one of the T3 (and which will likely be joined in by the
others), thus either dismissing these T3 cases in Texas or
transferring them to California.

Having said the above, it would certainly be interesting to
hypothetically assume the opposite, i.e., that Judge Ward decides to
DENY the T3 motion to dismiss/transfer back to California. If the
reason given for such a denial should be something to the effect
of, "The Court has a pending case left over from litigation that
began in 2005 involving the same patents, which the Court is
continuing to monitor for the purpose of enforcing a memorandum of
understanding between the parties", then that might be very telling.
I don't believe this will happen for a number of additional reasons
that would take yet another long post to explain, but, as always, we
shall see.

Best wishes to all.

Sat