With the announcement of the all-important DENIAL by Judge Gildea at the ITC, IMO the pendulum and momentum has shifted toward PTSC vs. the Respondents. At a minimum, Judge Gildea decided there is a sufficient amount of evidence available to warrant a trial in the interests of justice. Whether Otteson can prove infringement and not just innovation, which will likely be argued by the other side, along with a myriad of other dubious and/or numerous other reasons why "They" don't infringe is where Otteson will make his mark.

Optimistically, Judge Gildea has an open mind, and is willing to be convinced one way or the other. Certainly, the Respondents spent a lot of time and effort in trying to get the case thrown out prior to trial. They will now reassess the situation. Am very gratified, Judge Gildea denied the Respondent's MSJ attempt "IN TOTALITY". Gildea could have narrowed the parameters on which the trial will now be conducted and accepted a partial MSJ, but chose not to. This in and of itself is a "Good Thing", and will provide Otteson as wide a field as possible from which to argue infringement, prior accepted Constructions and partially rejected Supplemental Reports notwithstanding.

Furthermore, at least on the surface, to date, Judge Gildea has reviewed Otteson's initial arguments favorably and decided they have merit and should be investigated more closely under the microscope of a trial. Caveat: Goliath vs. David - The political and business pressure Judge Gildea will be under to side with the Respondents.

Conversely, the Respondent's gambit to throw everything but the kitchen sink in their opening salvo to quash the potential trial by submitting a MSJ based on their interpretation of the facts real or imagined has clearly failed. This failure will have repercussions. Otteson now has insight into the Respondents strategy and how to counter it. Because of "Confidentiality submissions", the public is unfortunately denied knowledge to handicap the upcoming trial. However, as Ron alluded earlier, if you fail at a MSJ, the other side accrues benefits as to some of your primary strategies, at a minimum. The initial avenue using a MSJ attempt nullify the case has been defeated, which was important, otherwise why file such an important legal device as a MSJ, if you weren't optimistic it would work, given all the time, money, and effort filing a MSJ entails.

We now have the "Gang of 12's" attention, to say the least. Each side has reviewed the approved Claim Constructions and Discovery is complete, I hope. The Staff & Gildea recognize "Dr.O", and seem to be generally impressed with his credentials, expert knowledge, and opinion, more favorably than the Respondents "Expert(s)" , IMO. This bodes well for us, if I am reading the tea leaves correctly. Confidence is building for our side.

Am speculating the trial will last approximately two weeks. As the case proceeds daily, am reasonably confident some of the Respondent's will weaken their resolve and proceed thru back channels to increase their current offers to settle out-of-court as the ramifications of a potential defeat in court become clearer with each day. Some settlements will likely occur between Monday and Mid-September at the latest. Remember, the Judge can render his verdict anytime, (Even during the trial which is rare), after the end of trial in mid-June. Judge Gildea does not have to wait until mid-September, as the schedule deadline currently exists.

The pressure will undoubtedly ratchet up beginning Monday. Otteson now has the momentum, the value of which is nebulous, I agree. However, I believe we clearly have got the Respondents attention. Virt