Thank you for an outstanding post. Patient, respectful and VERY informative - EXACTLY the kind of post I and I'm sure everyone here thoroughly enjoys seeing from you.

I continue to believe that the Complete Opinion is of more importance/interest than you suggest. But this is more based on something I heard from Cliff about a week after the MH2 ruling - when there was an expectation of a PR. I asked if PTSC was intending to issue a PR regarding the MH2 success, and he advised that Legal Counsel insists they do not at that time. He further advised that when the Complete Opinion is issued, they will again consider the issuance of a PR.

From this I surmise that the content of the Complete Opinion is of great interest. It's either that, or fear that the issue of a grandiose PR before the Complete Opinion comes out would be a bad move because it may taint the Judge's attitude, and thus influence his write-up, or because bad things happened behind the scenes as a result of the grandiose PR that was issued at the (partial) conclusion of MH1 and they don't want to potentially repeat a misstep, or both. If it's one of these things, it's fairly simple to comprehend.

But if it has to do with concerns over the content of the Complete Opinion, that makes things a little more complex. As I mentioned in passing in one of my posts, it is my understanding that at the conclusion of the first '336 re-exam, though we appeared to prevail (with amendments), the examiner included personal comments, and in those comments stated that he was not entirely convinced regarding Talbot (prior art). The fall-out from that may have been approval of yet another request for re-exam of the same prior art, including Talbot, which was approved by the USPTO (this assumes that the examiner's comments were considered before approving the redundant re-exam, which may or may not have the case, though due to timing I suspect not. Which means that the USPTO approved that redundant re-exam more likely out of stupidity/system inefficiency). The other fall-out is the raising of this issue in the T3 case and the apparent confusion (Ware) that it brought into play. Based on this history, it makes sense to me that our counsel wants to see the language of the Complete Opinion to better assess their position before announcing or doing anything. And it appears the opposition has taken a similar stance.

I'm hoping Judge Grewal recognizes the urgency of need for his Complete Opinion. I'm compelled to believe it is actively being worked (but this could be wishful thinking).

You've stated that it is not of great importance, and that he may not even begin work on it until a MSJ is filed, because that will prompt the urgency/need. Perhaps you can see where this fueled my fire (in an acknowledged disjointed way) re: MSJ. I admit I twisted the concept, based on what I heard from Cliff, thinking that since the Complete Opinion is the thing holding up a PR, it is probably, in my former opinion, the thing holding up a MSJ (assuming the strength of the MH2 rulings and the Complete Opinion are sufficient to support a MSJ).

*Be all that as it may, based on the above, do you continue to believe that work on the Complete Opinion is held in abeyance until a real need surfaces (e.g., MSJ)?

Based on your post(s), it sure sounds like a MSJ is not in the cards any time soon (meaning weeks). This is disappointing, because I see a MSJ as a "super catalyst" that could make great things happen in a hurry.

In a recent post, you said: "....I'm content to hold my shares in the hope that we will see another spike at some point in the future. I do think such a thing can occur, and in a very short time frame, if everything falls into place "just right" and the Company handles the situation correctly.". I enjoyed the optimistic attitude.

What scenario do you envision that could cause this to happen? What things need to fall "just right"? And by "very short time frame", do you mean near term (e.g., within weeks) or that whenever whatever it is does happen, things could progress very rapidly, or both?

I encourage others to engage in such discussion.

These are the things Agora users want to discuss - where are we, what things need or are preferable to happen, what should we be watching for, when might things happen. And everyone's input has value, especially yours due to legal system insight. I strongly suspect that people here have very little interest in ancient perceived and real BoD failures, compensation, the past in general (no money to be made there), or the kind of crap we've exchanged in the last hours.

Since I do not relish the thought of reading another some 220 of your past posts, I do not intend to unless further prompted. After this post, and reply to the first "*" question above, my original comments are I believe covered which the exception of the age old "J3 MOU" issue, which I think "answers itself" so there is no need to go there, unless prompted, ever again. Ancient history, and the basic point I wanted to make with this exercise has I believe been made. Hopefully the apology I offerred regarding the "immediate MSJ" issue is acceptable.

Again, thank you for your response. And I look forward to civil communications in the future, cooperatively (with everyone) sorting things out and having a better view of the path to success with this investment. Things that really matter....

SGE