The USPTO usually gets involved because of a challenge to validity because of prior art issues. An interested party submits an argument stating their facts about prior art.Once they submit their argument for USPTO for review , the USPTO decides if what they mention has credience and decides to go forward with an ex-parte re-exam (in out case). In an ex-parte re-exam once the re-exam process is started the USPTO hears no more arguments from infringers, or concerned third parties.Only the inventor is allowed to inter-face with the USPTO either thru requests for information, or request for face to face meetings. This is a huge advantage for the inventor, being able make arguments for the patent while having the other parties silent. Also, if the patent owners claims or patent is rejected by USPTO then the patent owner can appeal the decision, the infringer or third party can not. This type of process is a great advantage to the patent holder over other parties. Sometimes a court will not want to wait for the USPTO to decide validity in a case in progress and will decide validity issues itself. In this case, validity issues are brought before the court and both sides argue for, or against the other parties claims. Both sides are heard from. Much less of an advantage for the patent holder. Also, any court decision can be appealed by both parties. Not so in an ex-parte re-exam only the patent holder can appeal if he loses. So, in my opinion TPL did not want to lose this great advantage when 400 other infringers were waiting in the wings and folded.

And remember, this challenge to our patents was started after our trial process was started. This (IMO) is ammunition to get us to agree to some kind of less favorable settlement.These claims could have been filed many years ago, but instead were waited for tactical advantages.

AJMO