Here is Ron's opinion on the current situation Re ARM & the '584.. Thank you Ron for letting me post this (and correction of my previous opinion) so as to further clear up this issue about ARM & the '584.. And for the record I agree with you that ARM may still (read probably) infringe the other MMP patents. Thanks again..

----

Although I don't have the case citation handy, TPL's appeal of the stipulated ruling in favor of ARM was indeed rejected by the Federal Circuit. This means ARM won at that level, too, and, as a practical matter, there ain't nowhere else to go in the judicial system. Most people, however, don't understand the significance of this because they don't understand the nature and effect of a legal stipulation.

Although TPL tried to make itself look good by labeling ARM's PR as "misleading", there really was no substantive error in what ARM had said. TPL had invited ARM to stipulate in the EDoT that ARM had not infringed (based on the allegations of ARM's intervention in the J3 case), the purpose being that TPL would then be able to take an immediate appeal on that issue. No appeal would otherwise have been possible at that particular point in time, since, in federal court, the entire case must have been decided as to the party against which the appeal will be taken. As a practical matter, if TPL had not invited and obtained the stipulation, ARM would have been left in the case with everyone knowing the outcome, and this would have made for an uncomfortable situation when presenting the case to the jury (had the case gone that far, which was unknown at that time).

The important point is that TPL and ARM stipulated that, based on the allegations made by ARM in its intervention, ARM did NOT infringe. In litigation, a stipulation, being a form of contract, is the LAW as between the stipulating parties. Thus, when the appeal was taken, there was already an agreed-to JUDGMENT that ARM had NOT infringed, and, once the Federal Circuit thereafter issued its ruling, this was merely an affirmation of the non-infringement.

The result, as above, is that, as to the allegations made by ARM in its intervention and the content of the Markman ruling issued by Judge Ward, ARM is NOT an infringer --- there is no further judicial relief available in that regard, nor can the issue be re-litigated at the district court level. Nevertheless, some questions/issues as to ARM may remain, although this gets a bit outside my field so that you would need to ask a patent attorney about the following to be sure.

First, it is possible that ARM infringes on OTHER patents in the MMP, regardless of the '584 --- if so, I'm not aware of any prohibition against litigation concerning those other patents. Second, according to my understanding, claim 29 of the '584 was amended when the '584 was re-certified --- if the result of the modification is not considered "substantially similar" (or whatever the legal standard is), then an argument could be made that we now have a "new" patent so that, if ARM infringes under the version as modified, new litigation against ARM could be instituted. However, under those conditions, ARM would be liable only for damages that occur after the date of the re-certification.