Welcome to the board as a poster.  I see you haven't posted since last May, and then only four times, and it is obvious you've been an attentive lurker.  You have rightfully received akolaids for this post, as any time someone has dedicated some real thought, brownie points are well deserved.

I do have a few conflicts with your opinions, thus opening a discussion.  Here goes:

"Judge will not rule on the many Pacers submitted until mediation is given a chance."  This makes little sense to me.  The Judge should want as many cards on the table as possible to enable a more effective mediation.  The clearer the waters, the clearer the path to settlement.  Greater uncertainty just leaves the litigants (both sides) more perceived "wiggle room".  I still expect the Judge to rule on the outstanding motions very soon.  Looking at this another way, the mediation won't "drive" his decisions on the motions (i.e., they'll be what they're going to be), but those decisions could drive the mediation - to a degree. 

"Judge will rule in the Plaintiffs favor to disallow the Higgins testimony. This will happen because;

1.  
   1. He can easily rule on this due to past precedence and it is a no-brainer. May happen today or early next week/prior to mediation proceedings. Okay, now you conflict with your own prior opinion (above).  I doubt it is such a "no-brainer" or a ruling would most likely already been made.  I suspect Ward is being very thorough, as leaving a door open just leaves his decision vulnerable.  However, I do suspect he will indeed rule in our favor.
   2. He would like to see the parties settle prior to the court date as this is always in the best interest of the court to expedite matters within legally acceptable conduct. True/agreed.
   3. By striking the admissibility of the Higgins testimony he would send a signal to the Defendents, “come on boys, work this out. I am giving you another indication (besides the Markman) of which way this might go.”  Agreed again, but the decision will be on the merits and not an intentional "signal", necessarily.

3        Having said the above, the following could happen:

a    TPL will not settle with any of the remaining defendants for less than 60-80m. It is incumbent upon them to do so because it is not worth there time to go down this long road for anything less. And, if they were to forgo a trial, therefore seceding much larger amounts that they may have received, they need to justify to themselves and current and future stock holders the amount is enough to coax other defendants to settle (this is of high importance).   You conclude the right things but for the wrong reasons, IMO.  Getting at least a reasonably respectable settlement from each defendant isn't about the time spent, money spent, coaxing shareholders, or coaxing other infringers to settle per se, IMO.  It's all about validation and, more importantly, coaxing other infringers to settle for MORE.  The settlements here will be the precedent for all future licensing agreements.  High settlement numbers will, IMO, constitute validation of the patents AND justification for higher licensing fees.

This is a very slippery slope. If they don’t go to court this entire process can play out again with the next group that wants to oppose. If they do go to court, win or lose, other infringers can still take a stab in court AND the losers in this litigation can appeal (and probably will). They need to send a strong signal that, yes we have settled but we are confident that if we had gone to court we would have prefailed; and the amount of the mediated settlement, would be an indication of there confidence. Exactly correct, expect replace the word "confidence" with "competence".

b    They go to court. TPL is ready, willing and able and will not hesitate to do so if the mediated settlement amounts are not large enough to convince the many remaining defendants to settle even though they never went to court.  As touched on above, they might hestitate.  Our team does have a big incentive to settle to avoid the scenario of going to court, winning, and then being tied up in the appeals process - thus delaying everything to a large degree.  A settlement ends it with the current litigants, for ever.  A big settlement would hopefully "end it" with other infringers, e.g., if other infringers see a settlement from each of the currect litigants for the $60-80M you suggest, they may believe that a licensing agreement for $25M is a great deal.

If we don’t get at least 60 to 80m per remaining J’s, I would much rather go to court; I feel quite confident TPL would win.  It's good to have that confidence!

The above does point out the real isue at hand right now.  It's about the money.  A settlement is IMO greatly preferred over going to court - regardless of the court outcome.  They want this to end.  But it has to be for enough money to give perceived validation of the patents AND to persuade other infringers to license for respectable amounts.  Your $60M minimum is probably close IMO (funny, as time has moved on, my dollar threshold has dropped).  More would certainly be better!

I'll also post re: the rest of your post re: USPTO.

JMHOs, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE