Thank you for the kindness toward my continuing delusional affliction!

First, I must say that the primary thing I'm suggesting is that if there is renewed action of any kind in EDoT, then IMO it would prove without a doubt that there was a PTO/re-exam contingency provision in the MOU. I have also suggested that if there is some action, it may take considerable time for it to conclude, one way or another.

Now to your questions, with responses having a big huge caveat that I KNOW NUTTIN'!

I don't think litigation is in the cards per se, at least not up front. I think Ward, with consultation from his experts, would make some assessment as to whether the amended patents are overly watered down to the point of there being a question of infringement. Based on that decision, litigation could resume, or not (the court could again push for mediation before considering formal litigation in the courtroom). I would think the settlement terms would address this - how it would be handled under "amendment circumstances" - as you suggest. I'd think they would have contemplated this outcome.

I would think that unamended claims would have been a condition. What if all "meaty" claims were deleted? Would you, sitting in the J's seat, agree to pay under those circumstances? I doubt it. It would potential reraise the question of whether there was infringement. As mentioned above, I do think the court would make an assessment as to whether the patents/claims were materially altered.

I would think the court would wait for the final final conclusion on both patents by the PTO before taking action, if only as a matter of convenience and efficiency for the court. They've had to wait this long, what's another month or few?

I do agree that it only takes one valid claim in one patent to infringement make. This could alter royalty amounts (though I personally don't think it should - infringement is infringement).

The above I believe is responsive to your questions. Again, this is only my gut feel with near complete ignorance 'cuz I have no idea how the MOU was fashioned or how the court may act, or if the MOU is still in effect (as it could have been a straight hard line of unamended patents or nothing). All this assuming my delusions were correct in the first place! All I know is how I would have done it, or tried to do it.

Having said that, I think it's again time for me (and others) to STFU about it and see what happens.

I KNOW NUTTIN'!

SGE