...the defendants will fear a TPL MSJ and that this is what will motivate the defendants to offer a significant settlement before such a motion is made. 

Furthering this thought.. if Defendants were to settle before an MSJ, perhaps after being denied ACP motion, would the defendants have to publically admit to infringment.. or is the case just 'closed/dismissed' due to parties settling??  Defendants: 'Yes we settled, we request the amount not be released, and we deny any infringement'.  If that were indeed the case, would TPL allow this?  I would hope not.  Waiting at least thru [successful] MSJ would, IMO (IKN) force the Defendants to admit to (be found guilty of) infringement.  Thus bolstering the strength of the MMP to the extent neccessary to make all other infringers pony up.. which I believe is TPL's basic endgame goal for this litigation. 

Obviousness... that is the card for the Defendants not to settle, and to see this thru to the end.. w/ or w/o Higgins et al...

USPTO...  are they waiting for a litiagation outcome... or are the Defendants waiting for PTO decision?

jmo/thoughts