Ron is correct, I removed my post within the five minute window.

Here's why: Upon posting, I realized that there was more more thing I wanted to look at within the SW agreement, that being Addenda F: Lump Sum Addendum (page 17). I went to page 17, and the entire page is redacted. Thus, I very strongly suspect that the lump sum scenario applies, and not the disclosed royalty payment scheme.

I quickly removed my post for obvious reasons - the speculation was wrong.

However, the disclosed royalty payment scheme may provide some insight into the potential size of the lump sum amount. I had reviewed SW's latest Annual Report looking for a breakdown of Consumer Product sales versus Commercial Product sales. With the assumption that the vast majority of SW products infringe (which is probably a safe assumption), just applying the lower Consumer Product sales rate of 1.8% (simply ignoring the much "pricier" 7.2% Commercial Product sales rate) to the total sales/revenues number, it worked out to over $10M per annum, for a period of several years. But keep in mind that this may just have been our (PTSC/TPL) proposed rate number (high-ball) and not a fully negotiated number. However, this does suggest that the lump sum license amount was at least respectable.

In any case, this should demonstrate that for some licensees, apparently the MH1 result was sufficient to convince of infringement. This may be relevant to the licenses with UTC and Oracle (and comparatively small Pentair), who also signed between the time of MH1 and MH2.

FWIW,

SGE