I'm not an attorney either, I just used to work with them, oversee their actions, and develop/implement corrective actions to overcome their errors in a business contracting environment in the high tech arena (former Manager, Contrcats Compliance & Services at a subsidiary of Hughes Aircraft and then Raytheon). Your question is rather confusing in this context. If you are talking about ARM, then yes there is cause for legal action - between ARM and the claimed patent owner (TPL/PTSC). If you're talking about ARM customers who did not opt to include a Patent Indemnification (PI) Clause in their contracts with ARM, they opted out of any claim against ARM. They could sue ARM, but as soon as it was revealed that there was no PI Clause, the case would likely be thrown out. In the J3 situation, for some unknown reason (well, actually I think I KNOW*), the J3 did not disclose that a PI clause was included in at least some of their contracts with ARM until (what I would consider - especially when it was costing them near term money) very late in the process. If I were the J3, as soon as I had received the initial notice from TPL, I would have disclosed that all my contracts with ARM included a PI clause (putting ARM on copy for the letter), and simply bowed out of the litigation and associated headaches. But note that in my "what I would do" I used the word "all". So the possible answers/what I think I KNOW* is one or both of two things: the J3 was in some fashion working in cooperation with ARM to simply buy time (add a year) and/or the J3 (individually or all) did not consistently/always include the PI clause (leaving them liable to TPL in cases where it was not included - along with ARM's concurrent liability to TPL). These things I think I KNOW. SGE