I believe I was abundantly clear in my post that the contingency clause in the MOU (which essentially would have morphed into a binding MOA by virtue of court action) that I'm talking about was a contingency based on PTO action/results. My suspicions stand. If there is ever renewed action in EDoT with the J3, my delusions were correct.

Put another way, if there is renewed action in EDoT with the J3, would it be because of Quanta alone? Further, if Quanta even became an issue in a renewed action, wouldn't it HAVE TO BE because there was a contingency clause based on PTO results, with our side winning on that issue (causing the J3 to potentially fall back on Quanta as if it were a viable argument - which I seriously doubt it is)?

SGE

BTW, there are so many holes in your attempts at arguing Quanta/J3 that it is pointless to discuss. The Quanta decisions were based on there being no limiting language in the licensing contracts between the licensor and licensee. If Quanta were a change in law eliminating the validity of any such limiting language, it would not be binding on any contracts executed before the change in law (BTW, if such limiting language was never legally binding, it would never appear in a licensing agreement - you don't include clauses in contracts that are clearly not binding per applicable law at the time the license is executed). There is no double dipping unless the express intent of the license (i.e., no limiting language) was to cover not only use of technology by the manufacturer, but also the flow-down of the technology to those supplied product - do you honestly believe this was the express intent in our licensing agreements with chip makers? I seem to recall seeing one of those agreements, and the limiting language was in there. I could go on....and on.