I did not say that ARM opposed the motion and would be grateful if you would indicate where you believe that I might have done so.

TPL does not argue the deficiencies in MEI's contentions with regard to the third patent asserted
in this litigation, U.S. Patent No. 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 patent”) because, in view of the Court's claim construction, TPL is presently negotiating a stipulated judgment of noninfringement as to that patent.

PLAINTIFF TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT MATSUSHITA ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF OBVIOUSNESS (July 31 2007)

"...but I assume that they wanted all matters resolved now so as not to have to deal with them later - eventually realizing, I guess, thet TPL would appeal eventually anyway..."

The stipulated judgement removes ARM from the current litigation but the '584 has still to be resolved. ARM will have to deal with this at some time in the future.

Is the initiator of a stipulated judgement, the victor or loser?

Be well