On 4 Dec 2012, Judge Grewal issued his MH2 ruling which concluded with the following paragraph:

"The parties should rest assured that the court arrived at these constructions with a full appreciation of not only the relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, but also the Federal Circuit’s teaching in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,5 and its progeny. So that the parties may pursue whatever recourse they believe is necessary, a complete opinion will issue before entry of any judgment."

At the time, my interpretation of the above, particularly the last words "...a complete opinion will issue before entry of any judgment" strongly suggested to me that the Judge was indicating that "though a party may file a MSJ, such action would be fruitless because I [the Judge] will not rule until AFTER I issue my complete opinion". The "complete opinion" is understood to be intended to describe the basis for the Judge's decisions/rulings.

Our resident legal advisor has, multiple times, argued that a MSJ could and should be filed immediately, because the Judge will not act towards preparing his "complete opinion" until AFTER a MSJ is filed, because if no MSJ is filed, there would be no need to prepare the "complete opinion".

I found this argument to make little sense for multiple reasons.

First were the words I highlight above and my interpretation of those words.

Second is my opinion that the "complete opinion" will be needed whether a MSJ is filed or not so that the parties can form arguments for the pending jury trial or take near term action/recourse in reaction to the complete opinion/basis.

Third is the withdrawl of the T2's opposition to the MH2 result, them stating that they will withhold their opposing arguments until AFTER a complete opinion is issued.

Fourth is the fact that, per the Judge's MH2 rulings, we (PTSC/TPL) clearly won, so the reasonable expectation would be that we would file a MSJ at some point. A MSJ is a "given".

Fifth has to do with litigation strategy. Who in there right mind would file a MSJ BEFORE seeing the basis for the Judge's rulings and any vulnerabilities that those basis may reveal? IMO, this would have great impact on determining exactly which patent claims should be included in the MSJ, and which should be avoided (allowing the absent claims to proceed to jury trial, as opposed to a crap shoot where the Judge could potentially rule in favor of the opposition, or, perhaps worse, obtain a positive ruling with a weak basis thus setting up the opportunity for an appeal by the opposition after the conclusion of instant litigation).

With full knowledge of the above, our resident legal advisor was steadfast in his argument. I remained silent, only sharing my opinion with select fellow shareholders. After all, any time our resident legal advisor is confronted on the advise provided, it invites a series of attacks by him and his cohorts. Thus it has historically been proven to be a pointless effort.

But now time has passed. And now it should be abundantly clear that a MSJ will not be filed until AFTER the Judge issues his complete opinion and it as been thoroughly evaluated for any potential vulnerabilities. Likewise, it should be clear that the expectation is that the development of the Judge's complete opinion is a work in progress, AND COULD COME AT ANY TIME. And it will be the catalyst for a probable refined MSJ.

IMO, it is extremely obvious that the "event" we await is the issuance of the Judge's complete opinion via PACER. And again, IMO it could come at any time.

Another argument presented by our resident legal advisor and others is that a PR regarding the apparent MH2 success should be/have been released by PTSC and Alliacense. I believe the company has advised that they are holding off until after issuance of the Judge's complete opinion, not wishing to jump the gun and taint the Judge's attitude while preparing his complete opinion to our detriment. But the argument goes that they released a positive PR after the perceived MH1 success, so why not this time? Well, the lack of a PR this time suggests to me, independent of input from others, that perhaps the MH1 PR is now recognized as having been a bad (premature) move, and may have caused concerns voiced privately by the court or expressed by the less-than-wonderful perception of the investment community. Also, IMO a PR touting the MH2 success is rather pointless without an accompanying MSJ, i.e., if we believe the success was solid and based on sound, indisputeable basis, why isn't there an accompanying MSJ? So, IMO, holding off on a PR makes sense, as does holding off on a MSJ.

JMHOs,

SGE