Thanks sman, I read through it the day it filed to pacer.

It all reads logical, but you never know, as the SC judge was unwilling to consolidate the ArcSoft case to NC.

I recently pointed out, prior to Handals response, that NEST(Google) has no stay, with that, why should ArcSoft be granted one?

We shall see how the SC judge absorbs it.

I see that Purcell filed preliminary responses to the IPR petitions, should read through them over the next few days. With the IPR responses now filed, the PTAB must decide by the end of the year(3 months or so) to approve or deny the petitions as mentioned in Handals ArcSoft civil response.

doni