"if the settlement was conditioned upon vacating the psjs, it could have been rescinded by Ericy if the court subsequently reversed a vacatur order?" - fortunately, it just does not work that way.
If the settlement was conditioned on the court's action to vacate, then the court would in effect be a party to the settlement and the vacatur would have been made permanent, based on my reading of the legal briefs wrt Bancorp.
I note that the Bancorp precedent is a 10 year old Supreme Court decision, Nok and their attorneys knew about it, they cited it, and the very diligent Judge Lynn was moved to follow it, thereby reinstating the very adverse PSJs.
So, IMO, based on a number of very visible facts that I can see, F&J made a horrible, costly, error in not effecting IDCC's settlement in such a way as to make the critical vacatur permanent.
I have seen enough of the Bancorp issue to form a strong opinion on F&J's handling of our settlement. So, this is my opinion and I am sticking to it, subject to change according to new information or reasoning.
I also think that the adverse PSJs may be re-vacated by the Court of Appeal, but IMO that desired result will be achieved due to misteps by Nok (issues of timeliness, standing, non-party, etc.) that work to IDCC's and F&J's rescue.
Moreover, I see this mistake and other costly errors by IDCC management as avoidable, shoot yourself in the foot and possibly head types of mistakes, some of which I have posted before with my analysis and opinions.
Of course, none of us have perfect information on anything, so we use our best information available, our experience, and our intuition, to draw inferences and to form our opinions. I offer mine and my reasoning for you and others to use or ignore as you like.
Regards,
All MO,
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
