I'm thinking you guys are getting confused (which may affect others' thoughts) - or maybe it's just me! LOL

You guys I believe are trying to get the '148 and '336 involved in all this from the PACER. They aren't even mentioned. It's all about the '584 IMO. I'm thinking you guys may be taking the word "products" and seeing it as the other patents, or taking the "future litigation" and thinking they are talking about future action on the '336 and '148. I don't think that is the case.

The way I'm interpretting it, with regard to future litigation, it has to do with new ARM products that may come in the future that may infringe the '584. I think they're saying "let's duke it out now based on identified products and resolve somehow such that TPL can't come back at us at some later date, suing on the '584 as pertains to FUTURE products that ARM may develop, just to get another shot at it". In other words, if there is current agreement that Claim 29 is dead, keep it dead.

As for the '336 and '148, I still think ARM is on the hook. But this is confusing, since the only patent ARM ever addresses is (Claim 29 of) '584. That's what they stepped up to defend. There has been nothing I've seen but total silence regarding ARM and the '336 and '148. A bit baffling, since the '336 and '148 are part of the overall litigation - a huge part. Does this mean that ARM believes they don't infringe those patents? Or does it mean that their infringement is not defensible, so stay out of that fray and let the Js fight the good fight on those and accept the outcome? I'm thinking it's the latter, but this is where I AM truly confused.

So while I attempt to undo some of you guys' confusion, I introduce you to mine! I'd really like to clear up my confusion, as this has bugged me for a long time.

I KNOW nuttin', really, I don't!

SGE