The plaintiffs in this litigation are going to attack the defendants (us) on as many fronts as possible. If any of them stick substantially, then they will most likely win, or at least win on some.

If HTC is in fact only arguing infringement and Barco invalidity, then imo the plaintiffs are using their time and resources judiciously because each plaintiff has their own counsel which can then focus on each topic (infringement and invalidity) in greater detail.

We have our attorneys who will defend the MMP. IMO plaintiffs are planting the seeds now with the judge and a jury, if we get that far, so the plaintiffs have as many legs to stand on when arguing to Judge Fogel and in front of a jury. If the plaintiffs chose one point of attack and one point only, it would be much easier imo for the defense (us) to argue our case.

The plaintiffs imo want to muddy the waters as much as possible and the defendants want to clarify the waters. Obviously my perspective is bias b.c I believe the MMP is valid and is infringed upon by the plaintiffs.

At the end of the day this is strategy and we won't know the outcome until there is a substantive ruling, a settlement, or a jury verdict. All we can do is wait.

GLTAL