I don't know if anyone noticed it already but the 10Q mentions both Markman Hearings and IMHO it's a "hidden" hint about the quality of MH2 if you read the following:
"The Court issued a first claim construction ruling in June 2012, which preserved our ability to proceed on our infringement claims against Acer and HTC. Thereafter, Chief Judge James Ware retired and our case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, who held a supplemental claim construction hearing on November 30, 2012. Judge Grewal then issued a supplemental claim construction ruling on December 5, 2012, which preserved our ability to proceed with our infringement claims. "
If you read this it's clear that both MH had the same outcome - if you add the PR from June 24th last year you know what this outcome was with MH1:
"And on June 12, 2012, the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a "Markman" ruling, remarkable for its resounding defeat of the last-remaining ground being clung to by a recalcitrant group of unlicensed, serial infringers. In so doing, the Court aligns with the MMP Portfolio's 2006 Markman victory, handed down by Judge Ward in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and decisively confirms the claim construction arguments of the Alliacense Team."
I know there are some on this board who are of the opinion the company should issue a PR re: MH2 while I think they don't do it for tactical reasons - but here it is:
The long awaited OFFICIAL proof that MH2 went at least as well as MH1.
GLTA
