<Once ARM have settled all their customers will be covered by the license, thereby enabling the J's to settle. >

I think that statement needs more discussion/clarification.  I suspect you mean that TPL may only offer a 3 patent MMP license for settlement, and the Js want to get reimbused for the cost related to the 584.  Is that what you are conveying with the above statement?  Otherwise, I do not see settling on the 336/148 only as detrimental to the Js, if they have recourse back to ARM (indemnifcation) for the 584.  Right?  Opty 

The problem lies in the MMP Portfolio in that it is NOT individuated, it covers ALL patents or NONE. My point was:

"The current litigation does not now include the '584. ARM has potential liability for the '584 to both the J's and PTSC/TPL.

What if settlement for the full MMP Portfolio, by the J's, invalidates their potential claims against ARM on the '584?"

If you would be so kind as to read every PR on license agreements, I believe that you won't find a single one in which a licensee has been given a "pick 'n' mix" option - they have ALL licensed the FULL MMP Portfolio.

Now, if you go back to my opening quote,

"The parties proceeded to mediation September 25-26, 2007. During the mediation TPL did not reach an agreement with any of the three sets of defendants with respect to the issues of the lawsuit, or with respect to potential licensing agreements broader in scope than the claims of the litigation. Jury selection is scheduled to begin January 7, 2008."

So, the question remains, if the J's license the MMP Portfolio do they invalidate any ARM patent indemnity so that they are unable to seek reimbursement from them?

Apologies if this wasn't clearer in my prior post.

Be well