I just don't get it. Begging your pardon, but you keep hammering on some phantom change to patent enforcement law that resulted from Q v. LG.

Sometimes you say that nobody could possibly predict the change in advance.

Sometimes you say that the change was expected, with attornies predicting exactly what changes were going to occur at least six months before the SC ruling, and how this impacted settlement strategy (J3) to our detriment.

The part I don't get is "where is the change?". My understnding is the SC simply UPHELD the (century-) long standing Doctrine of Exhaustion. There was no change!

And, regarding the possibility of licensing agreement/contract language that may overcomed the Doctrine, the SC was basically silent beyond acknowledging that such language may (does) exist. But, in the case of Q v. LG (Intel), the language of associated licenses was not sufficient to overcome the doctrine. THAT was the SC ruling, IMO.

What was the change? How is upholding an age-old law a change?

TIA, as this may enable an end to this thread (again).

SGE