This change could force a compulsory license on the patentee -- and likely violate the "exclusive" ownership rights guaranteed in the Constitution and essential to U.S. innovation.
At root, this case tests whether courts can realistically enforce their judgments, including, as in this case, the judgment that a patentee has been denied the right to control the use of its patent.
Not only might the patentee inadvertently destroy his own patent, but his very act of making these kinds of statements could itself become a source of future litigation as accused infringers look for any misstatement.