Now that you mention it, I do recall this... dropping 108 & 445 earlier in that case. I'm sure we could dig up the PACER somewhere proving this.

However when a company settles, I don't think anyone (least of all a biggie like Samsung) would in effect say... "here's 1.2M to cover us for 3 out of your 5 patents and if you like, feel free to sue us some other time on the other 2." ...especially when the patents are all related and part of a single company portfolio.

While I'm sure they try to word PRs carefully, I'll bet they don't read as carefully as you do plus I see you also noted they used redundant phrases. In any event, the real facts would have to be in the agreement between the parties which we don't have. But the agreement must have been 5 for 5. No reason that Samsung should have settled otherwise.

- Sinkman