Perhaps you should review what I wrote and the sequence of the filings again and rethink the conclusions you've drawn.

Nowhere did I suggest that on the 28th there was no idea of a possible settlement. To the contrary, I'd suspect the parties were nearing a settlement if not having already agreed in principle or in total, and the request to attend the Markman telephonically may have been done as an insurance policy in the event at the last minute settlement negotiations / procedures blew up and there wasn't adequate time to travel to the hearing.

The logic that Barco settled contingent on some future event is akin to the MOU concept in the J3 settlement somehow holding a future revenue contingent on some yet determined development. IMO, the logic that either side is going to pay their lawyers to settle and DISMISS a case (especially with prejudice) but still leave it open to some future event, even if only a day away, is misguided.

The sequence of the filings was that on 11/28, Barco submitted the request to attend the hearing telephonically. On 11/29 that request was ordered granted by the Judge. Additionally, on 11/29 but filed "after" (based on the electronic stamps on the filed documents) the granting of the 11/28 request, the stipulation and dismissal order was filed with the court indicating a settlement occurred. Per the 10q that PTSC filed, that must have been executed by the Judge on 11/30 as that's the date the 10q says the case was dismissed with prejudice. (I haven't seen a Judge signed copy myself).

Additionally, the civil minutes of the Markman hearing do not list any of Barco's 3 lawyers as having attended so it seems pretty clear that they didn't attend telephonically.

When you read PDS' revenue recognition policy, they state that they recognize revenue essentially when licenses are signed (that's when they deem services have been delivered). They do include a statement that they may enter into some licenses contingent on certain milestones having been reached, but even if we say that had to do with the Markman (though it seems clear that it didn't), the Markman occurred on 11/30 and the constructions were issued from the bench, so since the 30th was in the quarter recently reported, I'd conclude that the Barco revenues are part of the $4.37M reported in license revenues.