"Maintaining" the patents has nothing to do with the "transactions" described in 7.6, and I could give you several other reasons why your interpretation is faulty. However, based on the last sentence of your post, in which you have made the assumption that "reexams are a subset of litigation", I don't see any point in continuing the discussion.
I mean no offense to you in saying the following because you're an intelligent person within your area of knowledge, and just because I'm a lawyer doesn't, generally speaking, make me smarter than you or anyone else. However, once a person who has no education or experience in a given field starts making assumptions that are designed merely to fit what his position needs for support, no further explanation to the contrary is likely to be productive. We saw much the same thing occur back at the termination of the J3 litigation, when, contrary to what I, among others, was posting, several non-lawyers provided lengthy, convoluted, ever-expansive "explanations" in heated insistence of why the MOU meant that lots more money was coming to PTSC shareholders from the J3 at some later point in time. Yet, as we have seen, all of those "explanations" were based on false assumptions and/or interpretations of legal documents, practices, and procedures that simply led to the construction of a very large house of cards --- and that, sadly, led many shareholders astray.
I don't want to go further down another "MOU road", so I will leave the issue here and allow folks to reach their own conclusions if the issue is important to them. Best wishes to you and all.
