The simple answer is "No".  Licensing agreements, as in any agreements/contracts, contain limitations and NDAs. I seriously doubt that that 1998 license (to an educational/research arm of the Gov't as I recall) was "open-ended" to permit use of the technology for anyone for any purpose.  Such a license would be self-defeating, unless of course the price tag were extremely high. It wasn't (obviously), and how many Japanese firms have paid good money for a license over the past year?  And if this were the case, why would ARM step into the fray?

I suspect Patriot was added, without argument, simply because they are co-owners of the patent.  And it went without argument, I suspect, because it causes no harm to our effort, and might actually make our situation that much more compelling to a jury (of Texans, known for patriotism).  It's as I've suggested in the past - wouldn't you expect a jury of Texans to favor the American team, one of which has the name "Patriot", over a bunch of Japanese firms stealing our technology? IMO, the J3/ARM demand to include Patriot in the suit was a serious miss-step, considering the venue. They probably had other reasons/plans behind their demand, but IMO this rather obvious probable impact on the perception/attitude of a jury was a major oversight and very ill-conceived.

SGE