I've been thinking about it....probably too much.

"He noted that while the ruling overwhelmingly confirms MMP Portfolio claims against Matsushita, Panasonic, JVC, Toshiba, and NEC entities, there remains a specific, highly-technical phrase that will require further scrutiny." Said Leckrone.

Regarding the entities mentioned, and the one not, I can only suspect they left out ARM because they were not among the companies we originally sued, and are not mentioned in the title of the case. They joined in later, were not specifically pursued, but "volunteered" to be part of this most likely due to patent indemnification clauses. Better stated when closely reading, did we ever (in this venue) make MMP Portfolio claims against ARM? No.

As for the last sentence, I'm thinking it was very carefully crafted to enable a couple of things.

First, as has been pointed out, it COULD offer the Japanese entities an "out" while maintaining their dignity; it's like saying "you can still settle out of court and NOT have to acknowledge wrong-doing". If this goes to trial or summary judgment, with the Markman interpretations weighing heavily against them, not only might they suffer huge financial damage, but, should they lose, they'd also suffer the universal recognition that they stole or were a knowing party to stealing. This is an incentive to settle, IMO. No company wants to acknowledge blatant wrong-doing, as it would be very damaging to corporate integrity and credibility.

Second, that last sentence puts them on notice that:

1) there is only one technical phrase, out of all those (31?) terms/phrases that were in dispute in the Markman, that has us (the least bit) concerned. Pretty bold when you think about it, and quite intimidating I would think.

2) That one, singular, lone technical phrase, while a concern at the moment, IS undergoing great scrutiny to determine whether it causes any real damage to our case. Perhaps we can come up with a way to make the Judge's interpretation work in our favor. In this instance, I'm actually hoping the phrase of concern is the "increases or decreases proportionally". It has caused a lot of head-scratching here, and may be causing the same for our team. While I'm personally confident (in my ignorance) that this phrase much better supports our claim than it does the opposition's position, they may be merely mulling it over in very technical terms to assure their position is indeed supported, and that this can effectively be argued to a jury. Of course it may be some other phrase (where the Court adopted the opposition's interpretation), but the same thought process probably applies. They are NOT conceding a loss on that one term - that is the most solid message.

All that said, I think this PR is directed to the defendants, not necessarily to us. It's putting them on notice in a big way.

Consider these words: "the ruling overwhelmingly confirms MMP Portfolio claims". To me, this is saying "we're about to file a motion for summary judgment, so your window of opportunity for settlement - and maintaining your dignity/integrity - is about to close". Further, "if you 'pass' on this opportunity, and we file, the Judge will almost certainly grant the filing and declare infringement on at least one patent, probably two, and possibly all three", i.e., "you will be declared guilty as hell, and the entire world will know".

I personally can see these words from Leckrone in no other way. I'm open to other interpretations, but cannot fathom the counter arguments on anything I'm suggesting. Leckrones statement certainly was not an admission of weakness!

One last thing: in the shareholders meeting, something was said about how they'd PR a settlement of $250M (though someone said it was $250M or $225M). They told us their target number. Do they now have any reason to back down from that number?

And, that number, did he say "settlement" or "settlementS totalling"? Where I'm going with that question is obvious.....

JMHO, and I KNOW nuttin'! However, I'm a former Contracts guy, where every word matters, and prior to that a process analyst and directive documents guy, where every word is carefully weighed to assure that the directions giving can only be interpretted in the desired way (or the contract or directive is useless).

SGE

BTW, does this thought process make anyone feel a bit more confident that more is about to happen, soon?