From Pacer, 08/25/2006 Filing, Motion of ARM to intervene. The way I read it, they (ARM) were only served Infringement Contentions for the '584, but I could be missing something.

See excerpt from Pacer Doc below.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

ARM Ltd. and ARM, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) respectfully submit this motion and supporting brief in support of ARM’s Motion to Intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 as a party-defendant in this action brought by Technology Properties Limited, Inc. (“TPL”).  On July 18, TPL served Infringement Contentions accusing multiple ARM processor cores (“ARM Products”) contained within at least four Toshiba chips of infringing United States Patent No. 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 Patent”). On August 14, 2006, TPL filed a motion to supplement its Infringement Contentions and accused ARM Products contained within at least 9 Toshiba, NEC, and MEI chips of infringing the ‘584 patent.

By seeking a declaration that the underlying ARM Products infringe the ‘584 patent and “a permanent injunction,” Complaint, Prayer for Relief § (d), TPL’s lawsuit requests relief that would directly impair or impede ARM’s legal rights, capital investments, and business plans as they relate to ARM’s ability to sell the accused products to its customers.  For chips in which TPL chose to identify ARM Products as the infringing portion, ARM is the party-in-interest. Both Toshiba and NEC have already provided notice to ARM of their positions that TPL's allegations in this case satisfy the requirements of ARM's indemnity obligations requiring ARM's participation. 

As explained below, ARM is entitled to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 24(a) because it “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action” and is “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [its] ability to protect that interest.”  <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Id. In the alternative, this Court should grant ARM permissive intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).  Furthermore, ARM’s involvement in this litigation is a course of conduct recommended by the Federal Circuit under the present circumstances.