I don't think the licenses were necessaily written because of a sense of weakness, and may have had more to do with other factors. I point to a couple of items which leads me to this possiblility.

<Commission Investigative Staff's Response to the LG Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination that LG Products Containing Intel Hardware and/or Software Are Licensed to the Asserted Patents>

At the time I thought the inclusion of software in the SJ motion was odd. But I think the ITC Staff's Reply Post-Hearing Brief sheds some light on it. There is a section which dealt with method claims 10 and 16. IMO, what they were saying is that the accused devices must infringe as they are when entering the US. Meaning if software reconfigures a device into an infringing device, like connecting via high speed USB, it is not ITC infringement. These are my words. The reference in the brief is as follows.

<“Use” of a patented method may constitute infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), but domestic use of such a method, without more, is not a sufficient basis for a violation of section 37(a)(1)(B)(i), which concerns “importation” or “sale” of articles that infringe a domestic patent.>

While the LG motion, even though denied, had no impact on the ITC result, this software issue may well factor in at the NDOC. And the ITC Staff was essentially giving respondents something to consider going forward.

That Staff brief was written on July 10th. And we know from the Acer license that they were in settlement talks prior to August 21st. It may have been a factor in the decisions to settle. And would remain a factor going forward with respect to additional settlements.

All IMO

Opty