<Regard the 584, in my layman opinion, we can not win an infringement suit against ARM (or any one else) for past infringement based upon the independent claims that were at issue in the appeals court.>

There were no independent claims at issue in the appelate court. There was a single construction of one claim term at issue. The appelate court did not decide anything beyond that.

I disagree with your opinion that we could not win infringement against anyone else. Why not? Has claim 29 been impermissibly broadened? Has the scope of claim 29 been substantively changed? I don't see a basis for your opinion, as I believe we could prove infringement of the original claim 29 as well as the ammended claim 29. Also, why do you assume that we could not prove infringement of any of the other 584 claims?

As far as ARM is concerned, you may be right. Doubt anyone here really knows. I think much depends on what claim construction the Calif Court comes up with. If both the Calif court and the USPTO are in agreement that there is no basis in the specification for the Texas construction, do you think the Texas construction should prevail none-the-less? Also, I do not believe the stipulation included all 584 claims, just those at issue in the case. Corrections welcomed. Anyhow, I tend to think that the 584/ARM issue will be put on the back burner until the 749 reexam is completed. Since we license a portfolio, not individual patents, I don't think it really matters whether infringement is on the 584 or the 749. We were told that all ARM products infringe on the 749 as well as the 584. As long as we can prove one or the other, we are good to go, IMHO.

Opty