Had a few spare minutes at lunch six or seven weeks ago to Google up a few links related to this case and found that lawyers are beginning to tout their participation. At the time, I decided not to help the plaintiff by posting this, but that's moot now.
Here are a few of the items I found:
Akin Gump for the plaintiff you all know about.
The most interesting item is from CA's lawyer:
While this matter remains ongoing, CA was able to settle during discovery for an amount that was very beneficial to CA.Hmm. CA owns InfoPump, which IBM was arguing as prior art. I guess the Teilhard management shills have to believe this guy's lying when he says "very beneficial."
I'm sure there will be more to follow now that this case has concluded.
Lest you think only Vincent McBurney and I believe the prior art arguments, here's yet another technical source who's mystified by Teilhard's patent trolling success so far.
Previous Teilhard thread.