Little problem there..... Went into "edit mode" I thought, to change that last post and something went haywire. The corrected, per my liking, post follows. Only fixes are to the first paragraph.

IMO, you are probably correct re: a settlement done or in process, but completely wrong in your need for elaboration as to the terms of the settlement. "Settled" means settled. Regardless of who "won", it would be settled and neither party would have future recourse. That, plus consideration, is the whole point of a settlement.

Who's favor? Which party suffered damages? Barco, for suffering through TPL's prompting for a license? Or TPL/PTSC, whose patent rights were infringed - whose property was used without authority for significant financial gain?

And so you understand, whenever we "sell" a license, the issue is then too "settled" per the terms of the licensing agreement, with no available future recourse within the bounds of those terms (which should exclude such things as "if you buy out or merge with another infringing entity, this license does not cover that other entity"). A licensing agreement constitutes a settlement.

As for the '584, TPL/PTSC has already dropped the claim on that patent, and agreed never to pursue damages. What remains (or, perhaps, "remained") are TPL/PTSC's counterclaims, which I believe involve the '336 and '749 (though I welcome correction).

Hope this helps. Honestly Mark, you need to do a little homework before making such mis-informative posts. You are way behind the curve re: what is already known to have happened with Barco re: the '584 - like a couple of weeks ago, well before the attorney issue arose.

SGE