We need validity and infringement proven. The USPTO has found the patents valid so the courts will most likely find that the patents are valid. Validity is basically that simple as far as 'we' as investors care. Ok. Validity done. Now, we need to focus on infringement. The simplified version of infringement is that the court needs to define what the claims 'mean', and then we need to take those definitions and determine if the the products accused meet the definitions that the court defined. Then summary judgements can be made based on validity AND the definitions of the claims related to infringement. For the T3 to win fully in the MSJ they need to prove the MMP is invalid or the patents don't infringe. Invalidity can be proven without the Markman, but non-infringement is harder to prove without a Markman. I suspect the MSJ will not be ruled upon until after the Markman. Lastly, if we lose anything of substance within the current litigation across all patents, other companies will not infringe. There are various scenarios where we can win some and lose some and still have valuable patents. It all depends on which claims are defined favorably to us. So whatever happens in this litigation will define most likely define the MMP for the rest of its life. We cannot lose and then go after other companies. This is it because the MMP is a fundamental building block that doesn't change much between computer chips. We are not talking products you see, but the underlying silicon that drives all electronics. This is it. We win or lose here for all intents and purposes. Again, the only thing, and I mean only thing, is the Markman ruling. Everything will most likely fall into place from there. Phone post, pardon the formatting.