The cases do say that continued infringement after a jury finding of infringement constitutes the type of "willful" conduct that the court can consider in awarding damages. Further, in logic Google cannot expect to receive the same % of RR (ie., 3.5%) as if Google had in good faith negotiated a license % back in 2004. I really don't think JJ can overlook these aspects going forward. 3.5% is too low for Google to pay at this point. It cost I/P millions of dollars to prove Google's infringement, and Google still denies infringing despite a jury's unanimous contrary finding. Why, under these circumstances, should Google be awarded the 3.5% favorable rate that an honest, non-infringing coumpany could have received years ago?