Tpl when in negotiations aways sells the portfolio of licenses, however Barco's suit was for the 584 only (see ref), then we countersued with the749, 890 and 336. I am of the opinion that Barco felt that the 584 was the weaker patent since it did not do well in Texas, or on appeal. They used the 584 to get us to California and due to the changes made to claim 29 they apparently felt weakened the patent for past infringement. They perhaps felt and the Judge agreed that they were due reimbursement of their legal fees since their original suit was for the 584 only. Now they still have to deal with our counter suit for the 749,336, and 890 which they would eventually have to deal with anyway. That is where the negotiation comes in. Remember Barco had an off year in sales being reimbursted for legal fees would be very important to them they are looking to save money. Getting the 584 out of the way would perhaps lessen what they pay for the remaining patents in the portfolio. TPL perhaps gave them a good deal if they would not object to us using their lawyers going forward. Perhaps we were impressed with their lawyers since they originated this entire scenario. So, I feel their is a deal with all the patents involved in the suit or else we could not use their lawyers while our counter claim is still in effect.

AJMO

Ref:

On April 21, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) gave notice of its intent to reexamine the ‘584 patent. On December 1, 2008, while that reexamination was pending, Barco filed the instant action. On February 17, 2009, Defendants counter-claimed for infringement of the ‘749 patent, the ‘890 patent, and United States patent 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 patent”). Defendants did not counter-claim based on the ‘584 patent. On July 21, 2009, the ‘584 patent emerged from reexamination with an amended Claim 29.2 On November 4, 2009, the USPTO denied a further request for reexamination.