For the umpteenth time, NO ONE, LEAST OF ALL ME, is suggesting a reverse split at this moment in time.

The one matter you appear to have overlooked regarding possible German litigation is cost constraints, yet you readily propound how this might adversely affect licensing.

Obviously, it would be irresponsible to pay for something until it has been shown to be valid and it is for this reason that Alliacense maintain a reverse-engineered product database to show the how and why. These matters do take time and as evidenced by the licensing to date much longer than the many months you state - just how many years ago were potential infringers placed on notice?

I too urged caution on the NIRC news until such time as the full details of revalidation were known, and it didn't take long for erroneous adverse comments to appear linking the two separate issues of the NIRC and Appeal extension request. It is my belief that the NIRC will be sent out during this week, if it hasn't already. The subsequent grant of the Appeal extension is merely the USPTO playing fair in allowing all interested parties to review the recertification as to their understanding of the agreements reached. The suggestion that the NIRC will now be somehow delayed is both laughable and pure FUD.

Returning to your earlier point about the issues presented as being valid before any action, how many companies were awaiting confirmation from the USPTO on the '336? Do you seriously think that they will now prolong licensing the MMP Portfolio and potential increasing fees, or might this be the trigger that they have been waiting for?

Where you see clouds, I see blue skies.

.

.

Be well