TPL does not think their MMPs are invalid. They didn't want a jury making the call on whether or not the J-3 infringed. Too much of a risk. I think they'd rather have experts (like the USPTO) make the determination rather than lay people who may not be capable of understanding the our technology

I must correct this mistaken belief that it is the USPTO that determines infringement, it is not. They determine patent validity. Even during the course of re-examination, the patent in question remains valid and enforceable.

The belief that juries may not be able to understand the technology is also erroneous:

A number of legal scholars have opined openly that juries are simply too unsophisticated to be trusted with decision making in modern patent cases because the technology (microprocessors, biotechnology) is often way beyond their ability to understand. If this were true, if juries really are less competent than judges at deciding patent cases, then we would expect to see that jury decisions in patent cases are affirmed less often on appeal than the decisions of judges in patent cases. But the empirical data does not show that. The study shows that the affirmance rate for patent appeals is the same regardless of whether the decisions were rendered by a judge or a jury.

http://ram.timberlakepublishing.com/...

I humbly suggest Googling "jury patent infringement"

Be well