That's what seems to be becoming clearer. I think I, and perhaps others have been taking the $8B to be an annual revenue, when in fact, it appears to be the total revenue by the products we are claming infringe.

I guess it's surprising to me that there are only $8B of their approx $50B revenues over the '06-'12 time frame that we claim comes from infringing products.

I suppose that may have been done just for efficiency purposes though. For example if HTC has product types A, B, C, & D that all infringe, but it's easy to prove A infringes, and more convoluted to prove B, C & D infringe, then we may have decided just to go with product types A, where we have the best case of winning. Sure, we may be giving up damages on Product types B, C & D, but we will have won an infringement verdict on a product type that may be very prevalent with most of the other infringers as well.

That way, if Samsung, for example, also has product types A, B, C & D that all infringe, they'll be hard pressed to fight us all the way to court, because if it's clear they have type A products, it will be hard for them to argue their infringement is not willful on at least that product type after an already successful MMP verdict on that product type. They might take a more agreeable tone after the HTC verdict, if it's successful, and decide to cut a deal that covers all of their product types.

Perhaps that's the strategy. That also might be a reason we could see a settlement after the verdict, but before a damage award is made as we might lobby for a settlement that includes consideration for the other B, C & D product types, even though we didn't push those in court. The tradeoff to HTC is they would avoid the possibility of willful infringement in exchange for having their whole product line now licensed, rather than just the product line A that will have been litigated.

In saying the above, I'm assuming that if in fact there are infringing products that we have let slide due to them being more dificult to prove infringement for, that with a court awarded damage on just the litigated products, their other products that may still infringe, could still be subject to future claims by us, since the verdict and damage award would not be considered a "settlement" for those other products, per se.

Am I at least thinking of correct possibilities, even if they are not accurate assumptions in reality with respect to the actual scenario?