While I'm very happy to the the spike in PPS, having recently made a modest re-investment in PTSC (300% up!), I do have a couple of concerns about the way the PR was put together....being a bit more critical these days.

I find the word "reaffirms" a bit deceiving. "Reaffirms" implies that the patents remained intact, exactly as they were when entering the re-exam process, which simply isn't true - they (in particular the '584, '336 and the yet to be recertified, I believe, '148 - the patents in contention with the J3) are all amended.

Further, the statement:

"Recent decisions regarding the Company's MMP Portfolio, licensed by more than 60 global manufacturers, significantly strengthen the patents and its licensing effort exclusively conducted by The TPL Group."

is also somewhat deceiptful. Did those 60+ companies license the old version patents or the amended patents?

The amended '584 is untested. I don't believe we even know how the amended '148 will read, and the '336, which is apparently available for viewing in its amended state, I strongly suspect no longer includes the word "independent" - the word of concern in the Markman (if I recall correctly) and definitely in the re-exam process. I did happen to notice that Ease's EE contact (thanks Ease!) is of the opinion that the '336 may actually be stronger with the new clarification - which is great - but certainly not the final word.

So I guess my main concern has to do with how PTSC presented the "news". If they'd included the word "amended" anywhere in that PR, I would be a lot more comfortable. Not that it matters all that much - maybe. I'd just hate to see some "rude awakenning" after a major company build-up of expectations. Been there before and it cost me dearly.

We need a test of the continued viracity of these amended patents. Of course I'd love that test to come via the EDoT! And of course I hope we pass that test!

Just ramblings of possible unnecessary concerns, 'cuz I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE