We have the recent settlement with TEAC. It is my understanding that the legal team representing TEAC also represents other litigants. Common sense (assuming it is applicable) suggests that if the legal team advised one client to settle, they would be doing likewise with others.

It's also possible that the TEAC Board of Directors initiated the settlement, weighing the risks of the Markman ruling not being in their favor, and against the advice of their attorneys. We don't know. If Kyocera and Samson Technologies also settle, then I would agree it was probably on advice of their attorneys, since they also represented TEAC.

TEAC may have gotten a settlement offer they couldn't refuse and just wanted to be rid of this case. I would think Samson would also be offered a reasonable settlement amount since they seem to be a small company. Kyocera on the other hand, not so small and the settlement figure is likely much higher.