Could it be that the concern about the "win" or "lose" wording is a cultural issue, and that HTC would like to have wording to "save face"?

My understanding is this was what the hearing was about. The way the judge wrote up his final decision was objected to by both parties. They now basically agree on what it should say and the judge agrees it should be rewritten.

HTC is still claiming he instructed the jury incorrectly and that is why they were found to infringe - thus their appeal. (of course Otteson keeps reminding the judge he got it right)

The underlying legal decisions/verdict and thus cost allocation wouldn't be changed, just the summary presentation.

I believe the cost allocation may be changed, possibly through settlement, instead of court order.

In previous motions HTC has objected to several 336 claims being included in the court costs and any costs involving the 890. We object to excluding these costs. I understood the judges offer of mediation as pertaining to the court cost discrepencies. Maybe I'm wrong?

Settlement of remaining HTC product infringement is again another issue, that doesn't involve this court, IMO.