I disagree with Ron's conclusions (acknowledging that we are both thinking in pure, ignorant-of-the-facts, speculation mode) regarding the Barco case. IMO, a settlement, with monies to be paid, is imminent. While the original "bone of contention", the '584, has been removed from the table (for reasons I and others have suggested), there remain the counterclaims on the '336, '749 and '890. On those, it is known that the parties are awaiting conclusions by the PTO (hence the mutually agreed requests for Stays, for that very reason). The '584 has no imminent action by the PTO, the others, particularly the '336, do.

I'm thinking that the arguing is done, and the settlement negotiation is down to the amount to be paid. This is NOT the legal counsel's decision to make. This decision, how much are they willing to pay, is Barco management's decision to make. In other words, IMO, the lawyering (arguing) is done. It's purely a dollars decision remaining. The paper is prepared, just enter the dollar amount.

Imminent? Well, since TPL and Barco's counsel have petitioned for the change in representation, it would appear that THEY think a settlement is imminent, and have postured for immediate counsel replacement (for the ongoing battle with HTC & Acer)upon delivery of a Barco settlement to the court. The ducks are in line. And I would be extremely surprised if Fogel would permit this change in legal representation without a Barco settlement in hand.

As for the concern over conflicts due to the (current) Barco legal team being privy to info/strategies of HTC/Acer based on coordinated action, while I appreciate the possibility of the concern, you have to keep in mind that the parties are likely competitors in the marketplace, and therefore in competition to "better" each other in resolving this dispute with TPL/PTSC. Barco wants HTC and Acer to pay more than they pay for a license. Thus the "your enemy's enemy is your friend" argument works both ways. And it could easily be argued "which is the greater enemy?", the one you deal with once and never again, or the one you'll be in contention/competition with forever? Now consider this: based on what appears to be happening (counsel moves), which appears to have been the "friendlier" relationship?

Ron mentions the reported (court clerk) "adversarial hearing on this issue, which the judge has not yet ruled upon". I don't believe we know that the "adversarial" discussion was in the context of the "counsel swap" issue. This issue was not, to my knowledge, scheduled to be addressed in last Friday's hearing. If it did come up, IMO it's even possible that TPL/PTSC objected to a ruling or consideration on this, saying that such ruling would be premature until a settlement is tendered. The "adversarial" voice could have been ours!

I admit that I have been racking my brain trying to figure this Barco situation out. The above is the best I can come up with, in acknowledged ignorance. It all fits, IMO. And if the above is close to correct, consider the strategic brilliance of the move (counsel swap). HTC and Acer are already put on notice, with all the underlying significance of the move, and are put under greater pressure to act. In fact, I would think all parties, including Barco, have been put under greater pressure to act, with the logical assumption that the first to settle will get the better deal. They are competing for the better deal. That is unless they think the patents will continue to have questionable validity, and that there remains a fight to actually be fought in that regard, with high confidence of success.

PTO action on the '336 is expected, per PTO guidelines, next week.

My next post will be in regards to share buy-backs.

FWIW,

SGE