"They sure don't make this easy, do they."

"As previously reported, the June 2011 Markman opinion construed claim terms in one of the Company’s Flash-R patents more narrowly than proposed by the Company. The parties to the litigation subsequently proposed a future discovery plan and requested the court to construe a claim term from a second patent in the litigation. The Company believes these recent developments could affect future licensing of the ‘774 patent. However, a successful determination from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) patent reexamination could resolve ambiguities and assist the Company in future enforcement of its ‘774 patent. As a consequence of these and other factors, the timing and amount of licenses, if any, by existing defendants is uncertain. Future events including court rulings, patent reexamination results and other factors could have a significant positive or negative impact on future patent "enforcement and licensing activity.

"The parties to the litigation subsequently proposed a future discovery plan and requested the court to construe a claim term from a second patent in the litigation."

IMO, for that agreed situation, we are going to lose a bit of steam for this case....however, all the stars will be aligned for the next round.

Perhaps it's to our advantage that it be questioned top to bottom....In getting rid of the "ambiguites".

Make it "Iron clad" as they say.

Thanks sman...for pointing out the most important issue of this QT report.

Where is RAM needed and where is RAM not needed.

doni