Re: PTSC Revenue/Alton...sran...
in response to
by
posted on
Feb 17, 2009 06:09PM
95% sure you are right, but with the NDA we just cannot be 100% sure of anything. I've always felt validity was the issue in the low settlement with the J's and why we did not proceed to trial (after the Q indicated a low settlement for that quarter of course) I also questioned the 8K filing after the settlement why it was not filed as a "material event" that was really my first indication of something amiss and of course when I mentioned that on this board it was totally ignored and I am sure not looked at too favorably. Everything we say about the J's settlement is pure speculation. Your assesment is as good as any at this point in time.
ref:
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. |