I too am offended by the unmitigated gall I have to question our company on such issues. No wonder there is no response! lol
Maybe they'll be receptive to clarifying this for another "less offensive" shareholder. Then again, perhaps they're thinking, "let them eat cake!".
Dear Mr. Flowers & BOD Members,
I am as PTSC shareholder and have a question that I would like clarified. In the most recent 10q, PTSC stated that:
"We filed a petition for review of the Initial Determination with the full ITC on September 23, 2013.We expect to learn within 45 days of the date of the Initial Determination if the petition for review will be granted."
Can you please clarify why this is the understanding of the company and that it is correct? It seems that the ITC Initial Determination was issued with a date of service of September 6, 2013 in accordance with ITC rule 210.42(a)(1)(i). According to the information found in the link listed below, specifically 210.43 (d) and Appendix A to part 210, the decision on whether to grant or deny the petition for review for Initial Determination on issues concerning violation of section 337 (ie. per 210.41 (a)(1)(i)) is due 60 days after the service of the Initial Determination, rather than 45.
Additionally, just to be clear I understand correctly, the petition must be submitted no more than 12 days for issues of violation and no more than 10 days on summary initial determinations according to the link below. Since we filed our petition on September 23, I'm assuming those periods that the ITC references are in "business days" rather than "calendar days". Can you please confirm that this is the case as the referenced rules seem to specifically include "business" when referring to business days, and seem to omit the use of the "business" qualifier in other references. This implies that unless "business" is specifically included, the days would be in calendar days. However, this is unclear. Obviously, if it's calendar days, it would suggest that our petition was actually untimely, and I just want to confirm that's not the case.
http://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/documents/section337_rules.pdf
Thanks for your anticipated prompt and inclusive response.
