Thinking about the concerns Brainfart raised, there may be a very simple explanation. When the PR says "...Fujitsu in claims construction hearings...", I strongly suspect it was merely a "short hand"/abbreviated way of referring to the defendants in the case. Remember, the Fujitsu name comes first in the Pacer filings under Defendants, and always will, regardless of the fact they settled. But, other than some apparent confusion by some here, and others under the impression that it was a mistake, IMO by simply saying the name "Fujitsu" the desired message was conveyed without listing the umteen entities involved as defendants in the case. I suspect that when our team talks about the case, they simply say "Fujitsu" and THEY know what they're talking about. Consider like the use of acronyms in any business - it's their lexicon, they understand it, and might be surprised when others (outside) don't get it.

As for the "Royalty" concern, remember that it's a royalty regardless of whether it's a one time payment or many based on some criterion. That's something I learned here (thanks Ron), as I had always been under the impression that a one-timer was referred to as a licensing fee and that royalties were periodic payments thereafter, if applicable. I learned that the word "royalty" can also apply to a one-time payment. So the word to look for is "recurring". Ain't seen it yet.

And I agree that Sony, Fujitsu and NEC will not be present at claims construction. As Ron has advised, any licensing agreement would clearly state that all instant litigation is complete and cannot be re-initiated (unless someone fails in fulfilling the terms of the licensing agreement, e.g., NEC fails to pay the agreed price by the agreed date certain).

Hope this helps, and calms.

SGE