First, the basis for this discussion was my little criticism from the very distant past. I should note that "my little criticism" didn't stop me from holding EDIG for years after.
But the discussion does have revelance to the instant situation.
The legal excerpt you included pretty much answers your questions, IMO.
I would alter the language based on my understanding, but it's probably more because of how I think things are really handled (I'll come back to this).
First to your specific questions (and do recognize that I'm no expert in this field, but have learned more than I ever wanted to know via "the PTSC experience" to date).
Yes, we are limited, by this Notice requirement, in what damages can be claimed.
Time passed, opportunity was indeed missed IMO.
The suits the Notice? I seriously doubt it. This is the door to the "really handled" issue. Your excerpt cites three methods of Notice. Obviously there was no way for EDIG to "mark" a product not produced by EDIG, but incorporating EDIG IP, so that one is out. Filing suit from the get-go would qualify, but IMO would not foster an out-of-court settlement/license agreement (too threatening). In reality, I strongly suspect EDIG's attorneys would send Cease and Desist letters that invite negotiation. If the infringer fails to negotiate in good faith within a reasonable amount of time, THEN bring suit. But the added guidance of your excerpt should be noted and considered when determining the proper course of action for each infringer. However, what they don't say is that there is nothing stopping EDIG, if a declaratory judgment is filed by the infringer, from countersuing for infringement. But the jurisdiction concern is valid.
One tid-bit not mentioned in your excerpt is that when notice is given (in whatever form other than "marking the product"), it should or must (unsure) accompany that notice with some reasonable evidence of infringement. For EDIG, this may have been pretty simple based on the claims of the patents. For PTSC, this is somewhat a nightmare because of difficulties in isolating the infringing method - even with the aid of an electron microscope.
I hope this is helpful.
SGE
