The original Acer suit in Calif did not include the 148. I now see that the suit against Acer in the ED of T does include the 148. So I correct my previous post. All three defendants in ED of T are accused of infringing on the 148.

And the connection between the 148 re-cert process and the T3 postponements is even more clear. If TPL wasn't initially indicating that Acer infringed on the 148, per the Acer suit in Calif, why did they bother to include it in the suit filed in ED of T? Perhaps because they knew it would be the first one out of the box and they only need one re-cert to obtain T3 licensing? Opty