Also, it was the T3 that sued us, not the other way around. This is a key point, in that if they felt we settled for next to nothing, why bother?

IMO that is precisely the point... They believe TPL settled for minimal... especially compared to what TPL is demanding from them... esp when you/we and they take into account what has been made public thru the multiple PRs & Q.

It seems from their complaint, they realize they are infringeing, but are seeking transparancy in negoiations.

Agreed 100%... They want it proven to them that the Js actually settled for $100Ms... guess we'll see it in the next Q

Why did the T3 consider California over Texas

IMO because the Markman is not automatically transferable to Cali.. Cali is still more defendant friendly (& slow).. & yes, they would want to avoid J Ward .... As far as delaying.. IMO it may actually be TPL delaying

Certainly doesn't seem to be nuisance fees as the 10Q would have [and RG has] indicated.

Hope you are right....

regards