But you'll note that neither PTSC, nor TPL, ever mention ARM as a defendant in any of their PRs.  At least I don't recall it.  So the omission of ARM may be meaningless.  And I'd also suggest that, regardless of who they're talking about, out of all those terms/phrases (40?), to have only one that "requires scrutiny" (which I wouldn't consider a "loss" necessarily) is pretty overwhelming.  But your guess/suspicions are as good (better) as anybody's!

Also, though discussion of ARM always revolves around the '584, does anyone honestly believe that ARM will ultimately escape liability under '148 and '336? The handling of this aspect has always bugged me.....especially when the patents seem "entertwined" to a degree.

I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE