Plug in EV = PHEV = Plug in hybrid. EV = BEV and the plug is assumed (although that may not be the assumption in 2025; there are a couple wireless solutions available today).

Except they specifically refer to them as "plug in" electric vehicles. Which shows they have no intention to ditch their engines. They may even create travesties like the plug in prius (w/ 11mi range; not even worth plugging in).

But it's incredibly difficult to assess "the part of the profits which is attributable just to the infringed patent" and that amount could even exceed the total profit made (if it increases market share, PR goodwill, etc). Let's say you patent a tech that halves the latency of PCIe. Assuming you demand reasonable per unit compensation, no major OEM would pay you licensing fees if they following argument was likely to hold "this is only one aspect of performance of one of many buses within our PC which contains billions of traces that transfer data having nothing to do with this patent; therefore we generously offered one billionth of our profits on our infringing PCs which the plaintiff rebuffed." To me, a market study is needed to see how many customers would have bought the product if it didn't have the tech and, if applicable, how many of said customers would have bought the patent owners' product instead. The patent owner should get all of the (per unit) profit from the customers who wouldn't have bought the product without the patent + any profit above this it would have reaped instead (by higher prices or lower costs of the patent owner) + an estimated value on the goodwill/excitement generated by having this technology in the product. All of these should be argued/determined in court and should be worrisome enough to generally default to paying licensing fees (and not ending up in court in the first place, which is a complete waste of resources).

Maybe they were afraid of being shot?

Source? Google only seems to return results saying Rand is an opponent of CISPA etc.

I'm waiting to hear it from independent authorities.

Well, if you read TFA it says "charge to 80% of capacity." Much of the competition currently uses similar language for 20-80% charge times (a typical QC session). For 500km (EPA) range it will need at least a 90kWh battery pack but most likely 100kWh. To charge that from 20-80% in 15 mins means a new charging standard, a thicker cable for increased current, improved cooling system, and either new battery chemistry or a willingness to quickly degrade the cells in the pack. Even with all those things they'll be hard pressed to build a network of these faster QC units because 480V 3 phase hookups are plentiful. Tesla recently announced it was being a little conservative on their taper but at best it could reduce it's 20-80 time from 40 to 36min. By increasing from 480V to 800V perhaps they could come down to 20min but to do 15 and 10% more range we need new technology on several items. And all that new technology and infrastructure can't be funded with a few thousand sales like the i8. If they really intend to sell this at $150k+ they'd be better off just focusing on inductance charging or autonomous charging at home (and work) and leave the customer to either fly or take their gas porsche for the 500km trips.

Assuming it launches for a similar price range, it can't compete with a Model S now, much less in the next five years. Next year the supercharger network will blanket the US and they'll have two attractive (/expensive) models to choose from. In 2018 they'll have a $35k everyman's car to compete with the LEAF and Volt. How is Porsche going to compete? If this came out a year ago maybe it could rely on it's brand but Tesla is quickly becoming the Apple of cars (not entirely a good thing). Talk about dead on arrival.