So both Nest and Dropcam are dropped in the civil case. Ok so I would think we would only agree to this if they were dropping the IPR? The IPR could continue independently though couldn't it? But if they do dop the IPR say, tomorrow does that mean one of the current defendants in the currently "stayed" civil cases can just file a new IPR with the muluzzo stuff? One advantage I can see there is that I think the patent owner is allowed to respond to the initial IPR complaint before the board rules on taking the case. Is that statement correct? I feel like that was a recent change to the IPR process right? I'm very cautiously optimistic though after living through the whole Flash R debacle........come on EDIG lets close the quarter on a high note, something that doesn't involve dilution or some debt. Looking for comments on this because Im not sure how to really digest this Dropcam/Nest situation after conditioning myself that the IPR was a necessity to move forward.