Then the simple thing for you to do is to RESPOND to my other comments beyond the word "immediately".

And here's one that I did not include: Your pushing for a MH2 victory PR.

As I observed in my post on 12/5/12 where I proclaimed an apparent victory in MH2, in the Judge's ruling there was no mention of the Talbot prior art issue. Perhaps in error, I surmised that the lack of mention strongly suggested the issue was dead. After all, if it remained an issue, I strongly suspect that it would have been deserving of mention.

This is one of those instances where IMO you didn't think things through. We were in agreement that Talbot was potentially a huge issue (if it didn't go our way). It had to do with validity of the '336.

Again, the MH2 rulings were silent regarding Talbot. Don't ya think it would be the wiser move to KNOW the basis for Talbot being apparently removed as an issue BEFORE proclaiming a major victory? I suspect the language of the pending Complete Opinion will disclose the things that convinced Judge Grewal that Talbot did not apply and was a non-issue, assuming this is truly the case. Those things may not have been fully disclosed in the hearing and, regardless, the language in the Complete Opinion will be what is depended upon in the future. Is there still a vulnerability there (as there was at the conclusion of the '336 re-exam, part one, per the examiner's comments, which left the door open for continued dispute)? Is there any significant vulnerability in the Judge's basis for other MH2 rulings?

Recognizing the significance of this litigation, and the probable impact of the result on past (Contingent Revenues) and future licensing, I strongly suspect that our team wants to see the language in the Complete Opinion before proclaiming a complete victory (or nearly complete, as there may be a limitation of scope of infringement of the '890 patent per the MH2 rulings - not THAT big a deal IMO, but none-the-less...).

Now I'll take this a step further, and you can apply your legal KSAs (BTW, KSA = Knowledge, Skills and Experience) as applicable. This is the value you bring to this forum.

It seems to me, recognizing that everyone remotely interested in this saga is watching every move, that IF PTSC/TPL are in a perceived position to proclaim a huge MH2 victory in a PR, they should be in a position to file a MSJ. IMO, these things go hand-in-hand. Otherwise, the issuance of a grandeous victory PR will beg the question "If you believe your position is as overwhelmingly strong as you say, then why haven't you filed a MSJ?". It just wouldn't make sense IMO. And we need a judgment.

Negotiations? Filing a MSJ would definintely speed up any negotiations that may be in progress, and if the dollars are right (and I strongly suspect that any negotiation arguments have refined to simple agrument about dollar amount) and we negotiated the ability to announce the settlement amount, go for it. IMO, most here believe that a huge settlement would be roughly equivalent to a judgment.

Bottom line: Your pressing for an immediate (yes immediate) PR proclamation of victory completely ignored the above. Thus, IMO, it was ill-conceived. But you posted several times about it that I've seen so far. Can you acknowledge a possible error in your judgment? Just the POSSIBILITY?

Also, though it's still TBD, this may be where I may have misquoted you on the "immediate" MSJ issue. The immediacy that I've noted so far (still only some 20 posts into it) pertained to the PR. But, as I say, I see the PR and a MSJ as going hand-in-hand. One without the other makes little sense to me. So if I messed up re: the application of the word "immediately", this was how it happened. Still TBD, but if this is what happened, I do apologize, though it is somewhat of a half-hearted apology simply because of my possibly incorrect legally (though IMO correct logically) attitude that a grandeous PR and a MSJ, by necessity, must coincide.

I invite your corrections to the above, hopefully done with some level of respect.

SGE