ARM intervention in case to protect customers has resulted in Texas Court ruling invalidating ’584 patent assertions against ARM technology

CAMBRIDGE, UK – Sept. 20, 2007 – ARM [(LSE:ARM); (Nasdaq:ARMHY)] today announced that on September 12, 2007, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, passed a judgment of non-infringement in favor of ARM as to all claims asserted before that Court by TPL (Technology Properties Limited) in relation to US patent number 5,784,584 (’584).

ARM joined the litigation in September 2006 to stand alongside the co-defendants – who are ARM® licensees – and respond to specific accusations against the company’s technology. Following a claim construction ruling by Judge John Ward on June 15, 2007, TPL decided to voluntarily stipulate to non-infringement. The judgment removes all accused ARM processor families (including the ARM7™, ARM9™, ARM10E™, ARM11™ and Cortex™ microprocessor families) from the Texas litigation, thus removing ARM from the proceedings in the District Court.

“ARM is satisfied with the result of intervening in this litigation between TPL and several Japanese licensees of ARM technology to combat what ARM believed were ill-conceived infringement assertions against its technology,” said Phil David, general counsel, ARM.

Adding to this blow to the ’584 patent, David also noted that in the currently pending re-examination of the case, the US Patent and Trademark Office has adopted the claim construction proposed by TPL in the Texas litigation and has issued a first office action invalidating the claim asserted in the litigation in light of a large number of prior art documents.

Outside of the litigation, TPL continues to assert US Patent 5,440,749 against ARM technology. ARM believes that this patent is not infringed by any ARM technology and that it is also invalid.

http://www.arm.com/news/18565.html

"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 The TPL Group. "Apart from the need for further scrutiny on this single claim construction, the Texas Court demonstrated great skill in dissecting and dealing with a very complex case over a 15-month period. We believe the June 18th Markman ruling overwhelmingly supports MMP Portfolio claims against Matsushita, Panasonic, JVC, Toshiba, and NEC entities."

As a result of the stipulation requested by TPL, the Texas Court infringement trial will focus on only two US patents in the MMP Portfolio, the 5,809,336 and the 6,598,148. TPL asserts that the June 18th Markman ruling broadly confirmed the strength of MMP claims including the very significant affirmation of US 5,809,336 as applied to both modern PLL-based and non PLL-based systems.

Leckrone Asserts "Misleading ARM News Release"

Leckrone noted that ARM issued a news release on September 20, 2007 that "was misleading" in that it implied the Texas Court somehow passed a judgment of non-infringement in favor of ARM. In point of fact, it was TPL who initiated the partial non-infringement stipulation to pave the way for a speedier trial and TPL's opportunity to appeal the single Markman ruling on the "instruction groups" claims construction. He declared, "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."

According to Leckrone, all ARM core families (ARM7, ARM9, ARM9E, ARM10E, ARM11) and the ARM Cortex microprocessor core family do infringe upon the US '584 as well as US 5,440,749 in the MMP Portfolio. He warned that all manufacturers of end user products using infringing ARM processors - with the exception of the 20 global manufacturers who have already purchased MMP Portfolio licenses - are infringers of technology protected by the MMP Portfolio. "The longer infringers wait to purchase an MMP license, the more they can expect to pay because our program is designed to reward first-movers in various industry categories."

http://www.tplgroup.net:8080/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57:the-tpl-group-file&catid=36:legislation&Itemid=54