I can understand the motion to include the Pubpat contentions, if TPL expects the trial to be over before USPTO makes a decision or the reexam is progressing favorably, but why give up the motion to strike the original contentions? If the contentions do not fit rule 3.3 why let them stand? Seems strange that we would make a motion, on what appeared to be solid grounds, and then toss it to the wind. Makes little sense to me. Of course all these contentions have zero impact on a jury if the USPTO keeps the 336 in tact. Let's hope TPL is being noncontentious from a postion of strength.

I believe Ron had indicated in the past that out of court settlement is always preferable. If the reexam outcome looks favorable, would TPL telegraph that to the defendants? I think yes, but that's my opinion. Opty