Thanks for the clarification. In concept, I can see that scenario, while IMO highly unlikely at least in the MMP's case, at least workable. But only on a licensing front, without settlments. A settlement that dismisses a lawsuit against an infringer (Barco or any other) but leaves open a contingency to continue the lawsuit if neither side prevails on the contingency just doesn't work as far as I can see. What does the court do? Allow them to "audit" the process similar to how a college student "audits" a class? Corrections welcome.

Furthermore, say for example, HTC had settled back in October or even a week before the Markan, on the basis of this contingent logic. Essentially, they would removed themselves from the litigation process, but allowed TPL/PTSC to remain, fighting ACER & Barco. So essentially, HTC would have funded TPL/PTSC's continued fight against HTC's preferred and contingency winning version of the claim construction, while HTC would have been out of the fight. However, if they had licensed just the '584 but not the '336, it might make sense, but it would preclude a settlement of the case. I'm not sure why PTSC/TPL would do that though since they license the MMP as a portfolio, not individual patents, but who knows what they'd do?! lol

I suppose there is a possibility in the ITC venue where they've isolated the case to only one patent (I think?!) and not the entire portfolio, that Sierra's license was for everything but the '336, and they're rolling the dice depending on the outcome of the ITC Markman. However, again, in that scenario, they've essentially funded the TPL/PTSC fight against themselves, so why do it?