You wrote : "Is it your contention that even if the USITC finds infringement we will still be settling for peanuts? "

I certainly hope not, we better not, but the 2010 MMP specific Declaration below indicates there is a historical "consideration" that typically occurs, we aren't just free to demand entirely unrelated per application use damages, so with that in mind (and other supportive independently found patent damages discussion DD), read the following FWIW:

" ... I am knowledgeable, based on many years of patent litigation experience, that licenses are determined in part by an alleged patent infringer's potential liability in patent infringment litigation. That liability is commonly determined by a "reasonable royalty" that would be determined to be owed by the infringer. An important factor in determining the "reasonable royalty" is the amount that the patent owner historically has licensed the technology at issue to other parties. In this case, I understand that TPL has licensed the MMP Portfolio to _________ for what understand to be essentially ____________ of the consideration of the license granted to __________. This license will potentially adversly limit future licenses, and in particular the "reasonable royalty" analysis. The amount of royalty that can be commanded from other companies will therefore be potentially adversely impacted, and will continue to adversely impacted if TPL continues licensing the MMP portfolio in a similiar manner."

Declaration (sworn) of __________________