It is also my interpretation that 108 should have not been included in the estoppel because it was not litigated at CO. However, the mention of laches and/or acquiescence is bothersome. Within a couple weeks of the Apple attorney bringing up the concept of laches(essentially Edig could have notified Apple that they were infringing on the patents long ago and did not) the long anticipated battle with the big fish, Apple, was settled. Connection? Acquiescence is basically the same--by not even sending a registered letter to put the infringer on notice, Edig implicitly granted use is what I think Intel is claiming. I have no idea if that is a valid defense or not. IMO prevailing on the appeal would negate the burden of the estoppel--the other defenses, who knows?