It seems there is still a lot of suspicion about APL, escalated by one statement of his, it appears:

"I don't care about your share price and because the ways things are shaking out, I don't think that TPL is likely to sue any of my clients as a practical matter and so, I am not even overly concerned about the litigation."

It seems many interpret his statement to mean that APL is confident that our team will fail, thus rendering any of our claims moot.  But I don't necessarily believe tthat this is his intended message (though he is more than welcome to correct me!).  I take the intent of his statement to mean that EITHER we will fail, and the issue becomes moot OR we prevail in one fashion or another (settlement or in court with the J2.5/ARM) in which case his apparent clients will opt to settle ASAP, negating the need for our team to formally sue his clients (or any formal litigation to transpire).

Looking at his statement as I choose to interpret it, it is completely logical.  It is fairly likely that his supposed clients are among the 80 entities that have already entered discussions with Alliacense, or the 200+ with which there are ongoing communications.  If they are anywhere in these "negotiations", why sue?  It seems a formal suit would only occur when negotiations have failed and there is no other recourse.  Thus, as I interpret it, he feels negotiations will be successful/end once some event serves as the ultimate "prompt", e.g., a fully successful Markman.  And, of course, a terrible Markman outcome, while killing any negotiations, would also stop our team from taking further legal action against others.

So, yes, as a "practical matter", our team is unlikely to need to sue his clients, one outcome or the other. 

This does confuse why he is here.  If it doesn't really matter, and our fate and that of his clients hangs on the instant litigation, what's to be gained by him with his presence?  The only thing I can imagine is to set us up with enough knowledge to where, once Judge Ward speaks, we can serve as a "body providing assessment" as to whether our team prevailed or not in the Markman. 

This too seems a stretch though.  We have some sharp minds working here, but unless the Markman ruling is such that the "winner" is completely obvious, our "attitude" would be worth a lot less, as a practical matter, than the assessment of the probable teams of legal and technical experts at the disposal of his clients.

My approach will continue to be to absorb the info he shares, but exercise great caution when he speaks post Markman ruling.

All that said, I'm so anxious I could spit - except my mouth is too dry!

And the latter is all that I KNOW.  The rest is JMHO.

SGE