Quick background: A patent does not let you do something - it lets you stop others from doing the thing you patented. Specifically, you can stop someone from "making, selling or using" your patented invention (without a license).

So, now let's say Intel makes some chips that use Moore's invention. Are they "making, selling or using" that invention? You bet. Now let's say that Samsung buys Intel's chips. Are *they* (Samsung) "making, selling or using" that invention? Well, they may not be making it, since the fabrication is done by Intel, but they sure as shootin' are "selling" the invention.

So if you're Moore (or TPL), who do you attack? Well, Intel of course. What about Samsung? Sure, them too!

Now, Intel signs a license. Great, one down, one to go. And "go" indeed it does, as the J3 case works its way through the various litigation steps. EXCEPT, now, right as you're about to go to trial, the Supreme Court yanks the rug out from under you.

You see, in the LG v Qanta case, the Supreme Court basically said that if you (TPL) license Intel to use your (well, Moore's) invention in thier (Intel's) chips, then you (TPL) cannot go after the people who buy and use those chips since the chip is already licensed to do what it does. In other words, Samsung's use of Intel's chip - in the way in which the chip was intended to be used - is not an infringement (according to the Supreme Court) because Intel already bought the right for the chip to do what it does.

WHOOPS! So now, in the middle of this big, expensive litigation, Samsung comes to you and says "hey, your damages claim is based 99.9% on chips we bought from Intel and, under the Quanta case, we don't owe you another dime for those". So what do you (TPL) do?

Well, you have to settle for basically nothing because under the law as it now stands (after Quanta) Samsung is NOT, actually, infringing your patent anymore. Therefore, IN MY OPINION, the lack of $$$ from the J3 had nothing to do with TPL's financial position at that time, Lecky backing down, taking the easy road, etc. It had to do with the fact that TPL HAD NOTHING (legally) LEFT TO WIN ON.

Now, what about the T3 - why are they different?

Well, we didn't sue them. THEY SUED US (I sure hope I remembered that correctly!) I believe it's called a Declaratory Judgement action. Now, if they were protected by Quanta, just like Samsung was - say if they bought all of their chips from Intel too - then why in the Sam Heck would they spend all that money on lawyers to sue us? Why wouldn't they just send us a nice letter that said "Dear TPL, under LG v Qanta, we respectfully advise you to go pound sand"?

Logically: BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T. Perhaps they are not protected by Quanta because they didn't buy their chips from Intel or some other chip maker we already licensed? If that is true (and, again, logically, it *could* be - I have no actual knowledge of whether it actually *is* or not) it would mean that they are exposed ($$$$) BIG TIME. Or, at least, theoretically they must be because, again, why would they actively sue us if they weren't?

And that is why In My Humble Opinion, the lack of dollars from the J3 HAS NO BEARING on what TPL can get from the T3 if things go our way.

Caveats: the above is all 100% guessing on my part based on what others have said in this forum regarding LG v Qanta, the J3, the T3 and the various Pacers posted by Wolf (which I readily admit I should have paid a lot more attention too before crafting this post - but I didn't).

THEREFORE, PLEASE TAKE EVERYTHING ABOVE WITH A HUGE GRAIN OF SALT.

I hope it helps to offer at least another (dare I say "plausible") alternative.

But as a shareholder, I sure hope I'm right. Good luck to us all!