ronran, you wrote:

In reverse order, there are several references in the document to a "claim construction hearing" (Markman) that is set on May 3, 2007 with Fujitsu, while the preceding paragraph indicates that the litigation with Fujitsu has been dismissed in both Texas and California.  Since there is a lot of weird stuff making the rounds on the PTSC message boards these days, I wanted to head this off at the pass and I therefore contacted my source   ---   I have been advised that this is an error in the filing, and that, in fact, all litigation with Fujitsu has been fully and finally dismissed.  The Markman hearing, therefore, will not involve Fujitsu.

As the case is still cited as Fujitsu et al in all pacer filings, has there been an error in the 10Q? Your legal insight would be appreciated.

Be well