I believe Brian has mis-interpretted the intent gcduck's posts.

Yes, he wrote ""There was a PR campaign but I learned from the company that the media didn't jump at it as hoped/planned." I don't know the date of the post that you extracted that quote from, but I believe it was a couple of weeks ago.

This is what I heard from Cliff as well. There was a major PR campaign planned and pursued via many media outlets immediately after the win in NDoC, but the value of the award was not adequately significant to garner any meaningful media attention. And understandably so.

What I believe gcduck was saying in his post today, to which you reply, was in response to folks here who were demanding more press releases/"follow up" by PTSC subsequent to the "win" PR issued on 10/3/13 and aside from the 10-Q PR on 10/15/13.

"Now we know why there was no follow-up after the two press releases in October.
It would have been completely premature."

I believe that what he is now saying that this latest action by HTC, which was "fully expected" per Ron and probably most here as well as PTSC, explains why there was no subsequent follow up by PTSC - there was another shoe yet to drop.

It ain't good news (PACERS). It does throw in another element of risk and something more to be considered by the ITC, but it is what it is.

In any case, both "versions" are IMO "correct".

FWIW, and gcduck can confirm whether I have properly expressed his intent.

I hope this helps.

SGE