I trust Ron does not mind my reposting his thouhgts on the recent SC decision. I like his insight and ability to cut through the legalspeak. He is an attorney, but not a patent attorney, and has followd the "P" company for many years. This is his thoughts:

Suzie, I certainly am not going to venture to say I know how all of
this is going to work out, and frankly, I think there are a lot of IP
companies and lawyers out there who are feeling the same way right
now. However, I think you raise a really good point about royalties in
a general sense --- I don't have time to post a great deal about it
right now, but the following are just some random thoughts.

The Quanta case now limits a patent holder from pursuing "downstream" non-manufacturers unless there is a provision in the license agreement with the original manufacturer which limits that manufacturer from selling the IP downstream (or perhaps other such contractual provisions). As such, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in the future, the manufacturer's right to re-sell to downstreamers could possibly be conditioned on the obligation to collect royalties based on those sales and then remit them to the patent holder. This would surely put a burden on the manufacturer in terms of accounting, and on the patent holder in terms of verification, but I'm sure there are ways around that since we know that royalty collection is often used in the industry.

I confess that this is just idle thinking that I have not developed to
any great extent, and that I have not spoken with any patent attorneys to obtain their opinions. It will be interesting to hear more from PTSC and/or TPL in this regard.

Thanks for you input on this interesting subject. Best wishes