"You are confident THE conclusion to 336 reexams is at hand? No egg on face this time?"

I'm not sure what your issue is. There is no "egg" on PTSC's face because someone files an ex-parte re-exam with the USPTO. That's the right of anyone to do, and the responsiblity of the USPTO to process it properly. Each one (group of combined re-ex's) is a stand alone process and should be treated accordingly. Additionally, the more re-exams that are pushed by infringers and that fail, the more the '336 can be trumpeted in strength, and the less likely it can be successfully challenged through the process. The "egg" is on the filers face for failing, and depending on how it goes in court, should increase any damages PTSC might receive under the willful infringement side of things.

Extending your logic, outside of a large legal settlement or a court win, there's little that PTSC should be publicizing in PR's anymore. By the way, as for the M.A. issues and TPL contolling the PR's, if you go back, you'll notice that the last few MMP PR's have been issued by PTSC, not TPL and include the tagline "According to PTSC".