Hey Ron,

Not sure you understood my response. In your original post:

You Wrote:

"This would the virtual opposite of the situation in the T3 litigtion, in which ARM, after the Markman hearing, was offered a stipulation of non-infringement by TPL"

My Reply:

"Did you mean to say "virtual opposite of the situation in J3 litigation"?

In your original post you only reference the "T3", but then go on to discuss ARM, Markman, and stipulation of non-infringement by TPL which actually occured in the "J3" litigation. I was only correcring the use of T3 when it should have stated J3 which I believe you just confirmed in your last post? (:

Good luck everyone!

P.S. Paul, Pats had the easiest schedule in the NFL. None of their wins came against a team with a winning record. They got no shot. (: