There are two reasons the value of the case gets smaller and smaller.

One is that the large assigned value at the beginning was a lie. When truth appears lies evaporate. (Usually).

The other is that Google's lawyers did their extremely difficult job--using their technical smiles they have methodically pruned an overgrown oak into a bonsai.

Look at both sides of the equation. What was paid? What is the value of what was bought?

Wouldn't both companies have in house lawyers fighting the case? In which case the lawyer fees would be just their salaries?

Google uses Keker & Van Nest (it's in the article).