First, NEC. It could be as you describe. But it could be that the contingency was a clause in the licensing agreement (they didn't have to do an MOU to accomplish this contractually).

"My point on the J3 deal is that PTSC has been VERY DELIBERATE to convey that what we see is what we get with the J3 deal."

That's what you choose to see. I choose to see that PTSC has been VERY DELIBERATE in not disclosing the content of the MOU, and thus not violating the terms of the settlement and nixing the deal. Anything less than such deliberate action leaves them open for dispute - a dispute they don't want. Tell us what the MOU was about - your opinion. As Ron stated, MOUs are for contingency planning. What is it?

There is no "misleading the market intentionally". There is compliance with a business agreement, with the court's backing. The only people potentially "misled" are those who believe the MOU was about nothing of real consequence, and those that believe that the monies believed to have been received from the Js, and other licensees since, were within reason.

Renegotiate? Relitigate? The terms of the MOU would specify amounts that would become due. There probably wouldn't be any further negotiation. And there would be no further litigation (unless the Js failed to comply).

You do open an interesting question regarding what amounts would be due depending on USPTO outcomes (all valid, some valid, etc.). I'm of the belief that it should only take one solid infringed claim in one patent to prevail - completely. Infringement is infringement, whether you infringe one claim or 100 - the penalty is the same.

And again, there would be need to "revisit". The deal, if there is one, is done - IMO. To put this more clearly, it is very rare to design a contractual agreement where there is a necessity to "revisit", for any reason, at some later date. It is a SETTLEMENT, i.e., DONE DEAL. They settled, right?

SGE