Well, let's do the math.
Let's say that prick ... errr ... analyst, Jonathan Skeels was correct about his revenue estimate for Q2. He estimated revenue in his last report to be $66.3M. Management said it would be $71. Since management is recording the four patents sold as "revenue" let's assume that the difference between what management knows, $71M and what Skeels doesn't know $66.3M is a difference of $4.7M revenue+.
Therefore the upper band, using Skeels model, is that four patents were sold for $4.7M. That is possibly, $1.2M per patent.
Either patent revenue was higher and/or the selling price of the four patents was very high ... whichever way you cut it, this was excellent news!
Maybe Skeels can run his numbers again. And reissue his leaflet.
And don't forget this part ...
This latter transaction [the four patents sold] is unrelated to the company's broader efforts to create value by monetizing certain larger patent portfolios for which the company continues to see good interest.
More patents to sell ... "good interest" ... now why would Management need to even say anything ... 
| 
