"Remember that, HTC, as I understand it, is a handset maker only --- so, while I would love to "hit the motherload" in damages in this case itself, I won't be unduly concerned if we don't."

I'm not sure why you feel the bolded portion should impact the damages. It's my understanding, that we base our license fee claims on the subsequent gross revenues produced by those products containing our IP, by the infringer. Whether it's a handset or a digital camera, I'm assuming our tech is prevalent in each. So if HTC generated $8B in revenue per year from the smart phones they sell, why would the license fee be any less than what would be collected by any other electronics company that makes $8B per year, or prorated accordingly?

Obviously, there are bigger than $8B / per year companies for us to still license, so I would expect the fees to be much larger for a $30B per year company, but proportionately so. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, but the fact the HTC is essentially entirely a small electronics company (not a small company, but small electronics), IMO means their revenue should be subjected to a higher percentage royalty than say a John Deere, who may sell one product for $100K, to HTC's $599, because HTC's is all about the electronics, and John Deere's is mostly about the mechanics. Essentially, what I'm saying is I'd expect HTC's royalty percentage rate to be in the same realm as HP, Sony, Fujitsu, Canon, Nokia, etc., BUT with a premium multiplier because of the lengths they've gone to resist licensing, versus those other companies.

It seems you disagree, if I'm understanding you properly. Can you clarify? Thanks.