L2V, My take... It is the finding of infringement of the first essential patent that would carry the bulk of the damages value. Each additional essential patent infringed would be of only marginal additional $ value. At some point in such a process there would be no additional value at all. (For example, what would be the difference in damages for infringement of 49 essential patents as opposed to 50?) IMO we only need to drop one safe on ERICY's head! P.S. I'm not going to debate anyone about my use of the term "we" here. Feel free to exclude yourself from the collective if you so desire. HEHEHE
L2V, I respect you as a longtime quality poster, but in this case I think you are overanalizing. Ask yourself this question: If ERICY infinged just one essential patent, could they have manufactured to the standards? Answer.... NO! This is where the lions share of the damages and royalty rate lie; the rest is gravy. This explains mngmnts assertion that the MSJ's have not effected releif sought. If you can drop 6 safes on someones head ala QCOM you make a statement (and get a 5% royalty rate). The reality is that just one will do! JMO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
