"so why would the Js agree to settle?"

Not that I know but, it would seem to me that since they were "granted certain rights to the patents" This would indicate that they were given temporary rights going forward. Which would mean to me that past infringement would be determined after other factors were considered as layed out in the MOU. If the court felt that the J's were not infringing why did they ask to be granted rights to the patents? Royalties going forward could be an option, but we just don't know. Since we have been recieving lump sum payments if we are now recieving royalties would an 8K be required. And the 8K following the settlement why was it filed as "other events", instead of "material events". The answers ly in with these issues for any accountants willing to take a crack at it.

And I am sure that all of this had a bearing on the T3 decisions not to purchase a license at this time and to take their case to court. Since they know as much as us, why buy a license now?It also makes you wonder that since Judge Ward knew, or we assume he knew ,that other companies were purchasing patents, why did he grant the NDA? He had to know that that would cause a problem as evidenced in the T3 suit. It is all so mysterious. I think they will someday be teaching this case in patent law classes one day, Just sorry I had to live through it.