``NO TPL was to get milestone payments for getting the PTSC issue resolved and proving to Intc that they had teh right to license and that it was uncontested``

I humbly suggest that complete resolution of the issue was a singular and interdependent act: one can`t prove it without having the rights.

Your statement would appear to imply that one can give proof in stages eg for 25% proof 1st milestone payment; 50% proof 2nd milestone payment and so forth. This I find both spurious and unworkable.

The syntax of the filed document would have read ``milestone payment`` for your assumption to prove valid, not ``payments``, plural.(Lawyers are paid for the tightness and accuracy of any contract).

I further believe that the payments would be incremental for the reason you state ie the matter was unresolved at the time of granting the rights. As such, milestone payments will continue(increasing in price at each subsequent milestone)until such time that the patent expires or is technologically redundant.

P-Newco(Patent-Newco) has the muscle to persuade all non-licensees to pay for past use, license for future use and ongoing royalty(milestone)payments, or face a potential triple damages liability at litigation.

Obviously, I will fully retract the above and apologise unreservedly to you in the event that you are able to post incontrovertible substantiation.

Be well