There is no settlement. There was no swap of counsel. Most of your points are moot.

The only point in your post that is still meaningful is the following, which I do not believe is a fair characterization of the 584 situation.

<If our counsel was never Barco's, we've given them a pass on the 584 and have no idea if we've gotten anything in return other than perhaps a smaller legal bill in fighting them on it. Suffice to say it's score 1 for Barco.>

We know that the amended 584 required new infringement notices be sent out. Which has been done. Hence, we could only sue Barco and the others from this point going forward. Note, that I do not believe we couter-sued 584 infringement with Acer or HTC. Corrections welcomed.

Having won something at the USPTO, I think it would be foolish to risk losing it in court. I don't think we are ready to argue the 584 in court, which would require undoing a prior court ruling and an appeal. Those arguments will be tricky and all that detracts from what we do want to press forward with. It makes perfect sense to take the 584 out of the picture in this litigation and concentrate on those patents that are more easily litigated in court.

One last thought. In all likelihood there will be settlements prior to trial. That is the way the percentages work. So we are not looking for a jury to award us more because there was infringement on multiple patents. We are unlikely to get that far. The settlement will, in all liklihood, be negotiated. Hence, whether or not the 584 is on the table, is probably not of much significance. IMO, when it comes to a negotiated settlement, the question for infringers is whether you need an MMP license, not how many pieces of the MMP you might be infringing on. Others may not agree with that, and I welcome their arguments to the contrary.

All IMHO, Opty