Actually, Laurie is quite correct   ---   settlements are done in such ways every day.  One very common example is a "high/low settlement", which I have personally done in several of my cases during trial while the jury was out deliberating.  In such an arrangement, the defendant agrees to pay "x" on the low end even if the jury comes back with a verdict against the plaintiff, and "y" on the high end (felt to be less than estimated judgment value) if the jury comes back in favor of the plaintiff.  It is simply a means of limiting one's exposure.

I too have often seen this in personal injury claims, but have never seen it in a patent case. Would you be so kind as to provide case details?

And Milestone, the J3 do not in any legal sense "validate" the patents by agreeing to settle.  That may be the way the public perceives settlements, but as you should be well aware, a settlement does not equal judicial validation.

The "validation" is to themselves as to the patents' viability., and having done so, settled. Obviously, no one took it as a legal validation without the requisite judgment.

As applied to the current matter, there could easily have been an arrangement in which the J3 agreed to pay "x"% at present (a figure lower than what they deemed to be full settlement value, which would be 100% for the purpose of this example), with the remainder to be paid if the PTO validates the patents.  I do not know for sure if this is in fact the case, but there is certainly nothing that would prevent it in theory   ---   both sides would simply be giving up the potential to "do better" in return for certain limitations.  Stated another way, "a bird in the hand....." comes to mind.

Again, please could you cite one example?

I look forward to your expanded post.

Be well and welcome back.