You are right in saying the following:

"And yes, I do feel that validity is not really the crux issue in EDIG's case with Samsung, which is a very good thing. If it was otherwise, then we might well be seeing exactly what is occurring with PTSC, as mentioned above. Notice I'm not saying that validity will never be challenged in our case, because I would expect good defense lawyers to at least raise the issue --- however, from what I've seen so far, validity is not the focus of the defense."

"Nevertheless, even if the patent is valid as a threshold matter, infringement must still be proved. As above, the plaintiff must then show by competent evidence that the device at issue violates the specific claims of the plaintiff's patent."...

Notice, SAMSUNG is not even challanging "Infringement in toto". They are only questioning it with respect to the 20 products they have indentified...

It seems they are more focused at mitigating their "Damages"...

That is the singular reason for the proposition that there might be a DEAL with Samsung which goes like this:

" By Samsung:

O.K. Here is the deal: We admit we infringed on 445 and 108.

You go and get a positive ruling on the other 2 patents and we make you an offer you cannot refuse to become one of 58 Samsung conclamorate.". We will take it up from there and take it up with all the other with all the other defendants, like apple, etc. and make them play in our "FLASH BALL PARK."

"By EDIG:

All right, you stip to drop your Motions, we dropped 445,108, and we take the case to a Markman Hearing on the two patents remaining at issue."...

Those were the STIPULATIONS that were adopted by the Court back in APRIL and we are awaiting the happening of the Markman Hearing in February...

Gil...