MSJ stands for Motion for Summary Judgement.. which can be filed by either party, or both, asking the Judge to rule their favor, pretrial. The previous Markman rulings, which determine construction definitions, can help determine which side may have garnered the upper hand as a result of the Markman. Most here, including Leckrone, feel TPL/PTSC 'won' the Markman regarding the '336 & '148 patents (the '584 has been dropped from this litigation and we are appealing a less than favorable Markman). So, mediation has just taken place.. no one knows the outcome of this Mediation yet. In my prev post I was speculating that IF Mediation has not been successful, then it would not surprise me if TPL filed for MSJ, given our supposed strong Markman re 336/148. I certainly don't know if Mediation was successful or not.. but the share price action gives me a hint IMO. Also, just because Mediation did not come to settlement at this time, does not mean mediation will not continue and be ongoing.. potentially right up to trial.

Additional regarding MSJ... if TPL files for MSJ regarding infringement, I would expect the Js to also file MSJs.. not doing so would appear to be tatamont to admission of guilt.. What would they file regarding? What have they been claiming? Nonvalidity.

As for any contact I have with Ron.. yes, I am in contact with him from time to time, but it is as much socially and out of friendship as it is regarding PTSC...

With respect to the source of my info above........

If summary judgments are filed, there will likely not be a trial on any issues pertaining to infringement, if there is a trial at all. Should TPL file an MSJ, it will pertain to infringement, and if granted, would be a determination that such has occurred as a matter of law. Conversely, if the defendants file an MSJ, it will likely be based on validity, and if granted, would mean that, as a matter of law, the patent(s) are not valid due to some issue related to prior art. In the first instance (TPL wins), the trial would be for the sole purpose of a determination of damages, while in the second instance (defendants win), there would be no trial since the patents would have been invalidated (infringement becomes irrelevant).

Unlikely that such would be posted on PACER, since the mere settting of a mediation conference does not involve the Court. However, if the case is settled at the conference itself, we might see a PACER filing to the effect of a preliminary compromise agreement. Of course, if there is a settlement, whever it might take place, we will also see a PR from the Company and/or TPL.

Nothing is impossible, but due to the number of parties involved, and the complexity of the issues and the damages being sought, I would not expect a settlement to occur at the mediation per se, i.e., at the mediation conference. However, mediation is usually very useful in narrowing the issues, and if the defendants did not come with at least some money to spend, they would be viewed as being in bad faith by the mediator, who would then make a report to the Court since he was appointed by the Court in the first place.

The point is that it is not at all unusual for a case not to have been settled by the close of the mediation conference, but to then be settled at some later date as a result of continuing negotations between the parties. Therefore, no one should be thinking that the sky is falling if a settlement is not announced on or shortly after September 30 --- that scenario would not represent a "failure", nor that all negotiations have forever ceased.

Good luck to all.

---------

regards