This thing just gets more and more weird.

The court was obviously aware of and approved (at least tacit approval) the "attorney swap-out". IMO, there is no way this would happen if there was an expectation that the Barco case would continue in any way, shape or form. The conflict of interest issue would, IMO, virtually prohibit further litigation. Our new attorneys would simply know too much about Barco's circumstance. And I would think that the court would have blocked the manuever.

The phrase "an adversary motion was argued" is baffling. Barco entered the motion, so I cannot fathom why they'd argue against their own motion. We don't know (at least I don't) whether TPL/PTSC was a specified party to the motion - if there had been a settlement reached, they would be, and in any case would not object/argue the motion.

I don't see how HTC or Acer could effectively argue the motion. What Barco chooses to do is none of their bee's wax. That brings us back to TPL/PTSC. But if Barco knew our team would oppose, why enter the motion to begin with?

Then there's the "I was told emphatically that no settlement had been reached". Wow! This just makes the whole thing that much more confusing.

It's starting to sound like:

- Barco's counsel just up and bailed on them and came to work for us;

- The notice of the change in representation somehow slipped through the cracks of the court, with nobody picking up on what was happening when recording the change.

- Barco petitions the court with a motion to dismiss based on the tainted legal representation of their adversary, TPL/PTSC, due to conflict of interest issues (rendering them in an intolerable position - an adversary whose counsel knows their circumstance, and them left without effective legal representation).

- TPL/PTSC argues the motion based on....??? "the attorneys signed NDAs"??? (that would never fly).

This just seems so far-fetched..... But it fits what you heard. Force fit.

Please recognize that all of the above is just me "thinking out loud" (or trying to!). In other words, it's all pretty useless input.

Hopefully one of our attorney friends can provide worthy opinions.

I KNOW nuttin' - to the extreme!

SGE