"In December 2014 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled favorably regarding our claim construction of the ‘108 patent. As a result, in December 2014 and January 2015, we entered into license and settlement agreements with additional defendants. In January 2015 we filed additional enforcement actions against multiple defendants."

You have to read that under the context of what we know. Anything subsequent the Ruling is not contained in the QT, Jan is a given, however for Dec. IMO, there would not have been enough time to book the issues for the QT. IMO, they would not have rushed it....a bunch of companies settled in Dec. after reviewing the courts tentative claims construction order and work sheet...

Ending the QT they did however collect ...1,078,500 for licensing, of which we have no idea of the fee structure. IMO, these settlements, where imposed under the merits of the CE ruling and are residuals of the previous QT settlements.

With that, I have to consider that they might be leveraging other issues without saying so.

It all sums up to about what I figured. Letgo, I see that phrase as a nudge to us.

FWIW...

doni