Thank you for the history.

So, in response to my question, focusing on the '336, it appears that Fish and Richardson represent "HTC and others".

From the PACER:

In June 2009, in response to affirmative motions by plaintiffs Acer and HTC in the related actions, the Court stayed this litigation and vacated all dates pending further developments in the non-binding ex parte reexamination challenges brought by plaintiff HTC and others against the MMP patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

It's still unclear as to whether "HTC and others" (presumeably ACER and ?) requested the re-exam (via Fish and Richardson) in response to a court order, but it "sounds like" they didn't, and that it was a self-determined (cooperative with others) action. But "sounds like" doesn't really cut it.....

To remind: per USPTO guidance posted by Laurie, if the re-exam was requested in response to a court order, it should solidly be in "expedite" mode. If not, it becomes a "maybe, maybe not".

FWIW. I question whether the USPTO understands the meaning of the word "expedite" ( or "hurry" or "rush", etc.) in any case.

SGE