Unrealistic positions, but they are positive. If that's what everyone wants to hear, so be it.

Realistically, though, the split decision, if it stands will weigh against willfullness. If, according to the Seagate case, you need “clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent,” then the ITC decision clearly undermines that position. Seagate makes a winnable claim of willfulness almost impossible. It's worthwhile to try, but the reality is it will likely fail.

Sure, the California case has a lot of weight. But again, inconsistent rulings will be detrimental if the lawsuit is brought in other federal courts. I'm not saying insurmountable, but certainly more difficult.

"As has been explained on this Board in great detail regarding the $1M Damage award, to use that amount as a basis to constrict future licenses fees is illogical." Clearly the jury didn't find that using Apple's numbers was illogical. How do you think a direct damage awarded in this case would make an illogical basis for damages going forward?

Yes, a lot of legal counsel will need to be involved. And PTSC will have to be willing to bring lawsuits if needed. It will be hard on PTSC because NPE type cases cannot be used to sue multiple defendants in the same district court action. Many firms will not want to represent an NPE and many firms will see the damages awards and possibly shy away from a contingency fee arrangement.

Anyway, this is not an easy road to go down. A reversal in the ITC would make a giant difference.