Thank you for asking the rational questions. Hopefully one of the legal minds here can chime in, but I'll offer some input so those minds can poke holes in it (which will be welcomed).

The Judge has ruled, and her "opinion" will be the basis for further proceedings.

I wouldn't expect any more licensing, unless a decision is made to proceed with trial and the defendants decide that an nuisance value license is cheaper than the cost of going forward (legal fees that may not be recoverable).

DM's options would appear to be limited. My understanding is that the only way to turn this around would be to allow the proceedings to continue to a conclusion, and then appeal and hope for a better Markman outcome in the next go-round (which may be years away). I suspect it's either go this route or cut their losses (more legal expense).

The only possible flaw in the above may be the 30-day response period, though I do not believe this includes the possibility of getting the Judge to alter her ruling. The 30 days appears to have to do with allowing time for the parties (EDIG) to assess their options.

I would not be surprised to see all defendants file for Summary Judgment based on this Markman result.

Perhaps our best hope is for DM/EDIG to proceed and get rulings on all remaining claims in dispute, and hope there is good that could come from it.

It ain't pretty, but that's my input. Now someone that actually knows what they're talking about can correct and/or add to the above. I've set the table, hopefully for rational discussion.

Lost my ass yet again on this stock. At this point it is difficult for me to maintain much optimism. That's the reality staring me in the face. Sad....

I suspect the only folks more upset than us are the decision-makers at Panasonic.

SGE1