I didn't pay all that much attention at the time, but someone pointed out that in recent court filings, ARM is added as a defendant.  While we knew ARM was a defendant on the '584, and many of us suspected/expected ARM to be liable for the '148 and '336 too, does ARM's "new" inclusion as a defendant establish them as liable for all three patents?

Perhaps I should ask whether those filings only pertained to the '584 (but I don't think so), or whether those filings impacted all three patents but were "generic" in nature such that they just "capture" ARM's liability on the '584.

Hopefully my question makes sense.  It would be nice to see the court acknowledge ARM's liability on all three.....(and for ARM to acknowledge it as well!).

Again proving that I KNOW nuttin'!

TIA for any input/opinions on this.

SGE