Hypothetical situation:

A certain company thinks the patents may be worth a significant amount if they are found to be valid (i.e. they 'pass' the Markman hearing unscathed).

The same company does not want to simply 'settle' before a Markman, since they would like to be the leader in flash technology, and are possibly considering an offer to acquire the company and its patents.

Would the company delay, as a 'cost of doing business' until after a Markman to offer more then (with a Markman hearing backing up the patent at that time) and then make a offer even though the offer would likely be much higher?

If an offer was made, and accepted, could the company then use the 'decided' Markman as a tool in future suits against competetors, even though the original case the Markman was decided on what was originally against the acquiring company?

Simply put, E sues S, S says 'we don't want to settle, in the event the patents are worthless. But, if they are shown to be valid, (even if it was shown in the original case against us) then we will want to pay a premium since we can use the Markman in the future as a means of enforcing the newly acquired technology.'

Would this be a means to acquire patents shown to be valid, even if paying a significant premium for a 'post-Markman' patent?

How much would that one patent remaining in the suit be worth, if sold separately?