You have hit on one of my "must comment" buttons.

I am of the mindset that "it only takes one". That is, if just one of the patents comes through, that's all it should take. If companies are infringing any element of the MMP, does it really matter which of the patents or how many of the patents are being infringed? The keys are that the patent will have been re-examined and deemed valid, and that the patent is being infringed.

I just don't see how "one patent is more important than the other" is even an issue. More important how? IMO, the important patent is, again, the one deemed valid that is being infringed.

Further, I don't see how the license price tag varies much between infringement of one patent versus infringement of two, three, or seven. IMO, validation and infringement of more than one of these patents is just a light coating of icing on a cake so sweet it needs no icing - it's ready to eat without any icing.

I've made this comment several times in the past, and responses to the contrary have been IMO weak at best.

So somebody please explain in a reasonable fashion how my mindset is off base.

The only argument I can see is that the '336 and '148 (of the seven patents of the MMP) are most easily proven to be infringed and/or are broadest/most all-encompassing. That would be a valid argument, and that would be why they are among the first to be hit with re-exams, and why they were the crux of the J3 litigation, for instance. With this in mind, we could whittle the "important patents" down to these two. But again, if this is the case, is the '336 more important than the '148, or vice versa?

If the '148 is deemed solid, do we even need the '336? I suppose the only argument here is that the validity of the '148 may be dependent on the validity of the '336. But this may be a stretch, since the patents were severed and therefore must be severable (not necessarily inter-dependent, but typically integrated in application/purpose).

For your and everyone's consideration. Responses solicited.

SGE