So, here's how I generally think it works (imo ... but I need to read up more):
* there's likely to be a damages expert that will apportion the liability among the defendants; this type of expert may even be consulted for purposes of a settlement. Part of any case is to determine the damages.
* there's likely already indemnification agreements in place between the Cisco 13 causing them to be contractually obligated to cover each other for certain damages.
* Delaware appears to be a jurisdiction that recognizes modified joint and several liability among defendants. If the court finds one defendant 1% or more at fault on the infringement part of the claim, that defendant may be responsible for the entire judgment. But the defendants are entitled to contribution from one another. It seems that if Chanbond settles with one defendant prior to trial (and sings a standard release of liability), then any judgment award will be reduced by the amount the one defendant paid or the amount of liability attributed to that defendant multiplied by total damages (whichever amount is greater).
So, imo, they can't stall trial process with apportionment of liability concerns. This issue will likely be scrutinized by damages experts prior to trial and adjudicated at trial. They may even have agreements between themselves on how they'll split the liability. And they'll be inclined to resolve it because of joint and several liability which, upon an infringement finding, holds any one defendant liable for the full amount (they'll fight the apportionment part afterward among themselves if it even gets to that stage).
