I have a question regarding ARM and the ?584 that may or may not make any sense. Let?s start with the following direct quote from ARM?s motion provided by Wolfpack last week:

“For example, ARM’s “cores” have both substantial similarities to, and substantial differences from, TPL-accused “cores” made by the current defendants – a situation that clearly may lead to a potential conflict of interest should ARM not be permitted the right to represent itself in this litigation. In addition, certain infringement defenses may be available to ARM’s products that are not available (or not available to the same degree) to other accused products (emphasis added). Indeed, ARM’s cores are based on long-known technology that pre-dates the asserted patents. Selection of non-infringement and invalidity theories could clearly differ between the various accused products. Absent intervention, ARM would be at the mercy of the present defendant’s to present theories favorable to ARM. Since those theories may, in fact, be unfavorable to the present defendants, it is clear that “representation by the existing parties may be inadequate.” Heaton, 297 F.3d at 425 (emphasis added).”

When I read the above, and I believe Knixx99 was alluding to the same thing last week as well, ARM cores identified as infringing on the “584 may not be infringing based on the Markman ruling on claim 29 “justification”, BUT, emphasis on BUT, ARM’s customers could still be infringing on the “584 because their customers make changes to their cores that could result in infringement. That’s my interpretation from the above statement and other subsequent pacer docs regarding this dispute. Now, let’s pretend that my interpretation is right (probably isn’t), wouldn’t TPL’s stipulation to dismiss ARM from the case be strategic in that it does two things, (1) removes ARM from being allowed to represent their customers, (2) in a way sets up ARM to say hey, our cores don’t infringe but our customers do because they changed the product.

Remember, ARM wasn’t originally sued, they intervened, so maybe this is Cook’s way of getting them out of the way? Maybe ARM get’s what they want as they are not liable to their customers via their indemnification clause because their customers modified the chips? Or, maybe I am just missing something here or just wanting something so bad that I am completely missing the point…which is most likely the case. Anyways, I am interested in hearing yours or others opinion. TIA Hope all is well with you. Good luck to you, me, us, and all longs.