Initial PR doesn't mention the price, which might be interesting. Well, this shows that for better or worse Tessera has no intention of sitting back and trying to wring money out of existing IP.
It always looked like the Shellcase patent estate included some stuff that could make a difference in the reliability of 3D packaging. The prize among the Allvia patents seems to be some very fundamental enabling technology.
There seems to be absolutely no doubt in the industry that 3D packaging will be important some day (technology of the future...and always will be?). If you think about need for standardization, though, it doesn't seem to be extreme. It's obvious that external forms of parts need to be standardized. The wafer mounting to the substrate ties so closely to the external form that there's pressure to standardize. But most of the story in 3D is wafer-to-wafer connections, and once you put the can on top of those, who cares about details? Point here is that proprietary 3D techniques of major manufacturers won't necessarily wage total war against merchant 3D techniques (as seems to be happening in 2D very high density). Perhaps everyone can get a slice of this roast.
I hope there'll be some white papers going up on the Invensas web site.
My long reply got eaten somewhere. Basically, the recently-expired patents were written at a time when it was anticipated that Tessera would mostly be doing manufacturing, not licensing. They were more defensive than offensive. I don't think that Allvia ever planned to be doing mostly manufacturing. Any patents ought to be more suitable for enforcement. And even with badly written ones, Tessera did pretty well. Can't say much about the Shellcase stuff that applies.