I bet Tantivy is OK proceeding to trial with the smoking shredder. Judge Ward will undoubtedly order a scrub down of chambers after the LU reps have departed.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to what IDCC has been stating. They are willing to go to trial as a last resort. Any IPR company would rather license than litigate.
IDCC is playing around with a few patents that can make or break its purchase of Tantivy. If it results in a license with LU, then it will lay a predicate to a full blown license with IDCC that will remain consistent with existing licensees without invoking reporting requirements under the MFL clauses.
The stipulations reveal that intentional infringement is a reach. Your assessment of the Markman is in error because claims construction is the only issue in these hearings. Prior art, prosecution history and estoppel are separate issues that go to the validity and enforcement of the patents and all are raised at trial or in summary judgment motions.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
