<I think it's proper to assume since the Barco settlement was documented as occurring on 11/30, and thus the actual license that would have most likely been necessary to forge the settlement would by default have to have been signed PRIOR to the settlement, that the Barco $$$ are in the Q2 report that was just issued.>

That is one conjecture.But even though the license would necessarily have been forged prior to Nov 30th,Barco still wanted to be a part of the Makrman hearing on Nov 30th.

<Further, Barco notes that its interests in claim construction are closely aligned with those of Acer and HTC, whose attorneys will be present at the hearing.>

Sounds more like a contingent license situation to me. What possible interest would there be in claim construction, if no futher $ at stake and whatever was paid was included in the Q?

Opty