Lets look at this logically.

Who wanted a stay in the first place and why?

Using Deb's logic...this case is about infringement and not validity. Which would seem to be true since it is the courts domain to determine infringement and the PTO's to determine validity. What is confusing to me is then why did the J's file motions to determine validity issues... ie Fish is not the inventor and so forth. Perhaps, they were setting up the eventual issue of validity and were preparing for a stay until a PTO ruling which some feel is the case. Why make motions for ruling on validity if that is not the case, or if it is not the courts domain? How did JW rule on these initial rulings? JMO but I feel he ignored them saying they are the domain of the PTO. Now we are back to square one. How are the validity issues to be determined? Obviously by the PTO. So all this haggling has to be how a settlement agreement is going to fit into perspective with the validity issues. I think the J's want to settle now but also want their money back, or some kind of agreement if the patents are invalidated.

Now here is the delema...If they make a settlement now for more favorable figures it would be enforeable even with the patents being invalidated. If a MSJ is issued do they get 3X damages? So, the settlement amount they are hagging after must be substanial but they want assurances.

JMO\

P.S. It's hard to drive in the dark w/o headlights. Hope I don't have a wreck

GLTAL