Replies to post #40539 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[Cougar6]

I am not so sure. Language in the stay request: "At the same time, the Plaintiffs’ ownership rights to the patent-in-suit are due to be resolved in state court in November of 2010. The movants believe in good faith that discussions currently taking place between Calypso and T-Mobile, and the pending resolution of the ownership dispute in Texas state court, will permit them to resolve fully all claims and counterclaims in this action for patent infringement without further litigation." It was clearly one of the two key factors in the request for the stay.

Further, it was a problem for the court: "The Court is already familiar with the ownership dispute over the patent-in-suit that ultimately led to joining Drago Daic and Jimmy Williamson, P.C. as plaintiffs from the parties’ prior motions and other filings." In my opinion the issue of ownership has become entwined in the federal case and must be determined BEFORE the court will agree to any final settlement.

That being said, all the parties could agree to something more substantial than the simple stipulation giving Calypso the power to negotiate with T-Mobile. All the parties could agree to drop the suit and take the federal court out of the mix. I just don't see any of that happening. Litigation seems to be Diac's preferred mode of operation and so he will push this through to the end. Williamson (by representing them both) is paying for it, not him.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. I can even postulate scenarios where an agreement with T-Mobile could be reached. But, in my opinion, the MOST LIKELY scenario involves completing the state court case before there is a final settlement in the federal case.

JMHO

[HighRider]

I have to agree with you. I don't really think the state case is a factor here. Since there has been no filing yet in Fed Court to indicate an extension past the state court trial date, I'm not sure the State case is holding anything up as far as a Tmob settlement goes. I understand the language in the stay filing, but if you read the 2008 agreement and the stipulation agreement, they both give Calypso a green light, especially the stipulation agreement. I would have expected a filing in Fed Court by now if they were requesting a stay beyond the state case. I think the judge might go for a short extension verbally, but a longer stay might require a written request of the court. They in my opinion would have known prior to the stay ending if a settlement could be reached without the outcome of the state case being known and they knew the state case was extended in Oct or Nov. So I don't see why they wouldn't have filed an extension to the stay in Fed court prior to or just after the stay expired. In a long winded comment, I don't think the state case is a factor.