Thanks, that helps.  In my previous post where I asked for a copy/paste of the pertinent language, I was confused by the input from a poster who said the language was in TPL's PR, and I didn't see it there (because it wasn't). It was in the Plainiff's Motion for Continuance (PACER).

While you are I believe correct re: ARM and the '584, IMO (and it always has been my opinion) ARM is on the hook for the '148 and '336.  Their designs, I  think, are contingent on using this technology (since they reference these patents in their patent applications).  And I hope you're right re: the Js still maybe being on the hook for the '548.

Here's where I again contend that if the '548 "falls out" due to the Markman ruling, it's not THAT big a deal.  Maybe some money off the table.  But we've still got the '148 and '336, and, IMO, we really only need one to see PTSC do extremely well with these guys, and the other 400+.

Ron will help further our understanding later....re: '548.

Thanks again. 

SGE