I've pondered the same thing. I've concluded that it took them a long time to discover something that resembled prior art. Lets face it, if they loose this case, they the defendents, are out  a lot of money.I think they are grabbing at straws, this is the best they could come up with. They have a chance to get a stay of trial, they had a chance of getting a re-examination, which they did. Perhaps they felt this would put more pressure on us to negoiate a more attractive settlement. Now even if they loose the Markman, they at least have a cloud of uncertainity of the review and more imprtantly the time it may take to conclude. This can only help the defendents in their negoiations between now and November when the trial begins. If they did none of the above what would they have benefited? Also, Lawyers are expensive they have to do something, or the impression of something, to prove their worth.

I've also felt that Pubat and the defendents lawyers are in cohoots. It was Pubat who first claimed prior art.