I think everyone KNOWs my position/thoughts on this.

It appears that nearly all (if not all) settlements to date include language like "in case of future infringement" or are silent re: whether infringement has occurred.  This is a motivation for settlement - an avenue to avoid an admission of wrong-doing.

But what's the bottom line when it comes to validation of the patents?  The dollars.  It has been suggested that maybe a settlement could occur*, but the information re: dollars not be released (NDA).  I doubt this avenue would be available with the Js, for one simple reason.  Specifically, if the dollars are big enough (and IMO, they'd have to be just to cover the legal costs incurred), PTSC could not escape the regulatory requirement to announce/file the dollar amount IF it is significant, "unusual" or a "material event".  The law will overcome any NDA desires.

Now for the "*".  As I and others have suggested (along with Ronran - way back six months ago - if I recall correctly), a settlement seems most likely at a point BEFORE the Judge rules on a MSJ.  This for the reason stated above - it's their only avenue to avoid an admission of wrong-doing.  Once the Judge rules (in our favor) on a MSJ, it's game over for the defendants - GUILTY.  But some have made a good point.  For "appearances" sake, it might be more palatable for the Js to settle if the Judge rules in our favor on this Higgins/Shaw/Hamilton motion (assuming it is as I suspect, the cornerstone of their defense).  I suggest this because once we file a subsequent  MSJ, it would already "look really bad" for the Js, and the settlement would look more like an admission of guilt via a knee-jerk response to the MSJ filing.  Less so before a MSJ is filed, I would think.

BTW, has the motion for the caption change been ruled on?  I hope everyone recognizes the potential importance of this.  Assuming we prevail, and the news hits the newswires, WE WANT the name PTSC out there.  As it was, it wouldn't appear - opportunity for recognition lost.  And I would think the Judge will be compelled to grant the motion (if he hasn't already) in the interest of protecting the reputation of Fujitsu - no longer in the fight.

All JMHOs, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE