IMO, your statements are full of holes.

You say the patents will likely be modified via the PTO process, and then must be subjected to a Markman in another trial. You ignore the reality. The '148 and '336 have been subjected to a Markman, and held up. And we KNOW that the PTO considers Markman results in their deliberation. It just sounds like you're trying to turn this thing upside down/backwards. Especially suggesting that we "have to" go to court again, against other infringers, to get anywhere. Golly, seems to me 17 new licensees since TX is "getting somewhere".

A contingency can be based on whatever is negotiated, period. Before the end of efforts in TX, many were suggesting that there might be a stay put in place pending PTO results. But, per you, PTO re-exam results would not be "definitive". And, per you, the success (or failure) in TX is not definitive. What is definitive? BTW, IMO, a positive PTO result WOULD be as definitive as we'll ever get (aside from 50-100 more licensees). The only way that result could be upset would be via additional re-exam requests. Just how receptive will the PTO be to new requests? And requests based on what?

The Supreme Court case IMO is a non-event, for the most part. All we have to do is continue as we have - go after second/third tier companies such that there is no appearance of "double dipping", or do you not grasp the intent of the Quainta vs LG Supreme court case?

IMO, your efforts at FUD are getting weaker and weaker. Goofy, non-sensical circular logic, IMO. And this opinion is not based on a defense of my admittedly delusion speculation - it's based purely on your words.

I welcome logical/reasonable counterarguments to my speculation. Unfortunately, yours don't pass this basic test, IMO.

Sincerely,

SGE