Good to hear from you, Bob.
You make some good points, as usual, and I certainly respect your view. I agree that we probably won't prevail on 100% of the issues raised in the Markman ruling, for the simple reason that it is rare for anyone in litigation to get everything he asks for, even in a favorable venue --- and it would certainly take someone with EE/computer expertise (i.e., not me) to know which of the claims are truly the most important. However, I do note that in the "top 10" (my term) issues that the lawyers have told the Judge are most important in response to his inquiry (see "mike's" post of November 24), half appear to involve the '336. Thus, as with the J3 case, this likely indicates the prominence of the '336, so I would surely want to see us prevail on those five, in addition to several others just for good measure.
In general, the fewer issues on which PTSC prevails, the more "ammunition" the T3 will have. Similarly, the more diluted the ruling, the more likely a "diluted" (i.e., smalller) settlement becomes --- and we all know where that will likely lead, just as it did in the J3 case. To be fair, the J3 settlement had more to do with the defendants' focus on validity rather than infringement, but the point remains the same --- with validity apparently taking a back seat in the present case, PTSC needs a decisively favorable Markman win in order to bring in the "big bucks" settlements that, if anything can, will hopefully drive our stock price higher. Anything less than such a decisively favorable ruling will lead to either a small settlement, or to trial if the T3 decide to stick to their guns.
By the way, if you want to see an example of the devastating effect an unfavorable Markman ruling can have, look at EDIG. The lawyers on both sides in that case were in general agreement at the Markman hearing that two of the claims would, one way or the other, likely be dispositive of the case, so the judge concentrated on those and ultimately rendered her ruling on one of them --- against EDIG. This resulted in an offer from EDIG's attorneys to enter into a stipulation of non-infringement of that claim (as did TPL with ARM in the J3 case ). EDIG's stock price can't recover from that, although the Company is now going to try to "repair the damage" in the PTO process. After the Markman ruling, the remaining defendants all settled for nuisance value (or less), and whether future litigation will ever be instituted now depends on the PTO result.
Thanks for your thoughts on this subject. Congrats on Michigan's victory, and best wishes to you and yours.
