The court, like the rest of us have to await any USPTO decisions. However, I would imagine, that based on the judge's prior experience, a 3 month stay should see some movement towards final resolution given the current state of play.

With the more recent re-examination request in April, a 3 month stay is not the outcome that they were hoping for, in my humble opinion. The plaintiffs are walking a very fine line at the moment, given their arguments for a stay, and once revalidated, which would appear to be the case with a least one patent, the corner into which they are painting themselves will become ever smaller, in my very humble opinion.

A few more licenses between now and September would be more than helpful in strengthening the defence position as well as the redefinition of certain words/phrases within the patent applications. When it comes to the Markman, there will be ample material to assist the judge with any legal definitions, arrived at in consultation between the patent owners and the USPTO.

One has to remember that TPL has knowledge of amended claims, within individual patents, well before any potential infringer and will be able to apply these terms to their reverse-engineered portfolio to more specifically pinpoint the infringement some months before alleged infringers are able to to so. The current litigation is based on prior claims, which may not be as applicable upon revalidation, which could mean that the HTC et al application will collapse purely because of their requested re-examinations. Ironic?

Be well