Fatwollit, Anyone,

Q1. What (defendant) company did not settle in 2007? ARM?
The action was dismissed later that year following a settlement between TPL and all but one of the defendants.

Q2. Does this statement mean all claims of '336 have been rejected?
The third patent (the ’336 patent) is currently in reexamination before the PTO, where all claims currently stand rejected. See Chen Decl., Ex. B.

TIA,

Regards,
PxP

____________________________________...

The Texas lawsuit was assigned to the Honorable John T. Ward, who conducted a claim construction hearing in 2006 and issued a claim construction order in 2007. The action was dismissed later that year following a settlement between TPL and all but one of the defendants. TPL unsuccessfully appealed Judge Ward’s rulings as to the ’584 patent – the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the trial court’s rulings. See Technology Properties Ltd. v. ARM Ltd., No. 2008-1020 (Fed. Cir. 2008). B. The Present Action Focuses on Patents Not Previously Considered. The present action for declaratory judgment was filed on February 8, 2008, as were the related ASUSTeK and Acer litigations (ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. Technology Properties Ltd., No. 5:08-CV-0884 JF (the “ASUSTeK Action”), and Acer, Inc v. Technology Properties Ltd., No. 5:08-CV-00877 JF (the “Acer Action”)). In the present action, HTC seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity as to five patents: the ’584 patent, the ’336 patent, and the ’148 patent, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749 (the “’749 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,530,890 (the “’890 patent”). Only three of these five patents were considered in the prior Texas action (’584, ’148 and ’336), but those patents are largely irrelevant to these proceedings. First, the TPL Entities abandoned their claim of infringement under the ’584 patent by failing to raise it in their answer and counterclaims. Dkt No. 60 at 6:18-9:2. They also declined to serve any infringement contentions under Patent Local Rule 3-1 for the ’584 patent, and thus have removed that patent from this case. A second patent (the ’148 patent) is scheduled to expire on August 3, 2009, many
years before the expiration of the other patents-in-suit. The third patent (the ’336 patent) is currently in reexamination before the PTO, where all claims currently stand rejected. See Chen Decl., Ex. B. It is not surprising, therefore, that the focus of the infringement claims advanced by the TPL Entities has been on the two patents that were never asserted in the prior Texas action. On December 19, 2008, the parties to the ASUSTeK Action entered into a license 2 U.S. Patent Nos. 5,784,584 (the “’584 patent”), 5,809,336 (the “’336 patent”), and 6,598,148 (the “’148 patent”). agreement which covered the patents at issue in the present action as well as four additional patents from a different portfolio. The ASUSTeK License did not affect the parties, patents, claims, or issues pending in the Acer Action or the present action.