"As we have noted in prior public announcements, we believe that the claim construction for 'instruction groups' requires more scrutiny than the Texas Court was able to give it during the Markman hearing due to time and space constraints," said Dan Leckrone, chairman of TPL, in a statement. "We believe the June 18th Markman ruling overwhelmingly supports MMP Portfolio claims against Matsushita, Panasonic, JVC, Toshiba, and NEC entities," he added.

In the statement Leckrone accused ARM Holdings plc (Cambridge, England), the developer of the processor cores excluded from the forthcoming trial, of issuing a "misleading" press release, claiming that Texas Court had passed judgment in favor of ARM. "The fact that TPL gave ARM a judgment of non-infringement was purely procedural as well as temporary until the reversal of the US ‘584 ruling," said Leckrone.

Leckrone alleged that all ARM processor core families, including ARM7, ARM9, ARM9E, ARM10E, ARM11 and the Cortex family infringe upon the U.S. ‘584 patent and on U.S. patent 5,440,749 in the MMP portfolio.

I wonder if the MOU Judge Ward is holding from the J's case is contingent on a settlement or court action with TPL and ARM in the future concerning the ARM cores used in the Matsshita, Panasonic, JVC, Toshiba and NEC products? That is if down the road TPL prevails and wins infringement on ARM cores then the J's will need to pay a royalty for the ARM core portion that was excluded from the settlement in Texas.

Just some of my delusional thoughts.

All the best,

Steve