You say: "Ron has said his sources tell him Fujitsu is out. Just an error in filing and the name of the case etc... I find these type of errors hard to believe. IMHO."

Yes, Ron has actually done two things to address this apparent concern. First he advised us that once a case is entered (with its title) on the docket, it never changes regardless of whether some/all entities cited in the title settle and thus fall out of the actual ltigation. This makes perfect sense to me (i.e., it is no error). Why would they allow the name of the case (that's all it is) to become a "moving target"? Entities fall out via settlement, entities are later added for various reasons (e.g., ARM - note that they are NOT referenced in the title/name of the case). The title is but an instant reference point, instant to the point in time when formal litigation was initiated. How could you refer to the case/search it out precisely at a later date if the title kept changing? Perhaps by case number.

Perhaps a way to think of this also is in what I mention above. ARM is not mentioned in the title of the case. Does that mean they are not a party to the case? We KNOW otherwise, just as we KNOW that Fujitsu and NEC have settled. I can see where Fujitsu and NEC may still have to be represented in the case, but only to advise the court that they've settled the claim and/or to testify regarding their volume of business with ARM.

Ron went a step further to resolve this apparent "concern" by coordinating with peers who engage in patent litigation, only to basically verify the above.

Another view is that from TPL/PTSC. Why would they settle on part of the claim, and leave themselves open to further litigation on other aspects? Why would they abandon that leverage, and leave an element of risk? They wouldn't.

Hope this helps....

SGE