While I understand your arguments/opinions on what may happen with recert of a patent(s), the reality of our experience differs considerably. And our negotiating position, IMO, will be greatly enhanced.

So think about what you're saying. Apply what you are saying to our experience to date. We've settled with 51 companies, some for truly impressive amounts. How many took us through Discovery in a court setting before settling? Three?

In the case of the T3, they did publically state that they refused to acquire a license because we were asking, in their opinion, too much money. Does this "attitude" present itself in any court documents? Of course not. For the case to have any effectiveness, they HAVE TO SAY either "we don't infringe" or "the patents are not valid", or both. Based on your experience, isn't that ALWAYS the case?

I seriously doubt that there are any patent infringement cases where the initial argument made is stated as "yes, we believe the patents are valid, and yes we do infringe those patents, but the patent owner is demanding too much money". However, I'd bet that in at least 50% of the cases that go to court, that statement would truly apply.

Just a contrary opinion. I do realize your arguments are about really big buck settlements/license fees, making them more applicable. But to suggest an extremely low likelihood of big buck settlements with re-certified patents in our hands seems just a bit of a stretch. Big bucks - of course they'll hesitate. The threat of bigger bucks, by orders of magnitude, or the threat of injunction may present the undesireable risk that will prompt payment. There's always the counter of "and you've made how much money exploiting technology to which you have no rights?".

JMHOs,

SGE