IMO, Dean has nailed it on the head. But I'd like to place a bit more emphasis where IMO it belongs.

As Dean/DaBoss says, and as I've opined previously, a successful reversal of the Judge's Markman decision would take years - through the appeals process. So IMO the urgency on that front is basically non-existent.

But there remains a valid patent (albeit in reexam, I believe) with claims construction pending, and if I'm understanding the situation correctly, the primary term/phrase in question is the definition of "Flash Memory" (corrections welcomed). How many variations of definition could there possibly be?

Add to this the thing that IMO is often overlooked (even by me!) when assessing the situation. It's what I refer to as the "it only takes one" philosophy.

Infringement is infringement. Whether it's infringement of one patent claim or fifty claims, it is infringement. I even have a rough time wrapping my head around the idea of a greater cost for more claims infringed. It only takes one!

And I doubt there is much of a premium for each additional claim violated, all other things being equal (i.e., the additional claims don't effect the count of infringing product).

Did the Markman ruling put a perceived chink in our armour? Apparently.

Is that the end of the game? Certainly not. It only takes one. One infringed claim of one valid patent.

And IMO THIS is why Canon settled now. The pressure and urgency still exists. The risk is still there. Because it only takes one.

FWIW,

SGE