<PS, The J3s had us locked up, why would they give us a contingecy based on the re-exams, when they were in the drivers seat??>

Well I beg to differ on who was in the driver's seat. I thought the Markman was a big turning event in our favor. Furthermore, if you go back a few months prior to the J3 settlement you will see a progression of stays for the purpose of negotiating a settlement. Because there was more than one stay, I think it would be fair to say neither side really wanted to go to trial. And because there was two stays with no settlement the judge, IMHO, was flipping out. If my memory is correct the third request for stay was only by the J3. After a week, and I assume some prodding by the judge, the request for stay was made joint. And we finnaly came to a settlement, which I suspect may have been suggested by the mediator.

Why so many stays? Why were we hesitant in joining Js third request for stay? Why the need for a sealed MOU? Why was judge Ward still involved overseeing the MOU post settlement?

Be intested in hearing your thoughts with respect to the above.

Opty