So help me to understand your logic.

You're saying that what led you to conclude that the Barco license/settlment was likely a "contingent license situation" was that Barco's lawyers wanted still to attend the Markman Hearing telephonically even though they were clearly in the midst of finalizing a settlement. Thus their filing to the court for that permission despite knowing they would be settling the case the next day.

Yet, subsequent to submitting and getting that order signed by the Judge that allowed them to attend the Markman Hearing telephonically, they then filed a dismissal order that settled ALL claims and which, per PTSC, that dismissal WITH prejudice became final on 11/30. However, per your argument this didn't nulify the "contingent license situation" because in your view, the timing of these 2 filings were too close and that leads you to believe they were still interested in the claims construction.

HOWEVER, despite this alleged interest in the claims construction, upon which you're relying on to justify the "contingent license situation" argument, Barco's lawyers in fact did NOT attend the Markman Hearing.

Yet you still assume the Barco license is a "contingent license situation". Am I missing something?