tarvacin, the Judge was clear last time. The verdict was in favor of PPHM. We have the same judge and the issues the Judge mentioned in his verdict argumentation have not been alleviated by plaintiff.
Plaintiff has merely tried to abuse the procedure to harm PPHM by disclosing information that would otherwise not have been disclosed, such as PPHM being in talks with Abott Labratories (now ABBV).
Besides drumming up some witnesses, all ex-employees or people of which one could expect some bitterness towards PPHM/Avid, who add nothing to the story we didn't already know, plaintiff does nothing then to create a 'general feeling' and builds artificial grounds to break into non-disclosed information by suggesting that plaintiff could better make his case if the witnesses wouldn't continuously hide behind the terms of the non-disclosure they signed with PPHM.
So not only are the conditions as mentioned by the Judge not satisfied, but also the procedure is abused to harm PPHM and linger. Plaintiff may be lucky if there are no consequences.
Now, and I am sure Bungler, North, Paladin and other lawyers or legal professionals will follow me when I say nothing is ever 100% sure in such case before a court of law. But this case should end in November, and actually should have ended a few months ago.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
