Having reinvested, I’ve of course dedicated more thought into where we’re at and what may be just around the bend. Didn’t come up with all that much, but….

The ASM IMO will be a non-event. Basically just the SOS. They may actually have something up their sleeve, but it would certainly be a surprise to me.

PDSG, IMO based on the language of the divestiture PR, will simply close the doors on Iameter. But I can’t help but be a bit intrigued with the whole Baroni thing. He does have the contacts that could facilitate contracts. If I choose to believe the media, Gov’t spending in areas of secure communication infrastructure is supposed to come early 2010 (though I had previously thought it was “scheduled” for this Fall, so I don’t know if the schedule slipped, the media reporting is bad, or my memory is bad – it’s probably the latter! LOL).

The ‘336 situation is nothing less than confusing. But it does appear that the re-cert of the amended patent from the prior re-exam will be published in the Gazette – which I find baffling (in that it seems the USPTO had ample time to put the brakes on this action after acceptance of the new re-exam request). But I do agree with others that the new re-exam will be expedited under these circumstances, and that it is highly unlikely that the examiner would question anything that resulted from the prior re-exam.

My understanding is that the ‘148 and ‘749 are being handled by the same examiner and/or are being worked in concert. It is my further understanding that NIRCs on these two patents are imminent. While I had previously poo-poo’d the thought that NIRCs on these patents will “take us to .70”, after full consideration I suspect this is possible on their announcement. Why? Because these two patents, while not cited by the company as being as significant as the ‘336, IMO are equally significant (particularly the ‘148, IM ignorant O). And there is one thing very different in the re-cert of these patents than when we had the NIRC on the ‘336 from its prior re-exam, that being that we (and presumably those watching PTSC closely) knew that there was another re-exam request “in the wings” on the ‘336 when the NIRC was announced (not accepted, and perhaps not even reworked and re-submitted, but we knew it was out there, pending, leaving continued doubt/concern). That, to my knowledge, is not the case with either the ‘148 or ‘749. There is nothing known to be waiting in the wings on these. Thus, the ‘148 and ‘749 are not “encumbered” as was the ‘336 when its NIRC was announced.

Significance of the’148 and ‘749? Well, the’148 was included in the J2.5 litigation/settlement (and whatever delusional things could come of that), but my understanding is that the ‘148 is not included in the case with the T3. Conversely, my understanding is that the ‘749, while not directly part of the J2.5 litigation, is part of the T3 case. NIRCs on these two patents could make things happen (as I continue to contend that it only takes one – though in the case of the J2.5, I suspect that it would preferable to have both the ‘148 and ‘336 re-certed to cause action, if there is any action to be had by Judge Ward). Here I’m only talking on the past/instant litigation activities.

Continuing on my “it only takes one” belief, with just one of these fundamental patents validated by the USPTO, the anticipated “wave” of licenses could actually come.

The only thing troubling with all this conjecture is the company’s (PTSC’s) posturing. If the above is correct, then why all the concerns over finances? But it can be argued that those PDSG financial concerns shouldn’t necessarily be influenced by what goes on with the MMP. It’s a separate enterprise, with separate books/accounting.

One last comment/opinion regarding the expectations voiced here about getting more requests for re-exam. Actually, a couple of thoughts. One, there is only so much suspected prior art out there, and with each request/assertion, there should be “diminishing returns” (i.e., if the basis of the claim were that “known” and relevant, it should have been included in a prior request – after all, to qualify for consideration the prior art had to be available to be recognized before our patent application was submitted). Second, dovetailing with the above, follow-on requests from the same entity should be deemed highly questionable, for the same reasons cited above. An adversary can only cry wolf so many times before their cries are ignored/discounted. So yes, IMO, there will come an end to these requests for re-exam, or at least their serious consideration by the USPTO.

All JMHOs, and any presumed “facts” above are open to correction – please.

SGE