<I am not saying the 584 is strong or weak, but if we use the 584, we know for sure ARM will get involved.>

OK, you may have something there. We are defendants in all these cases. So the initial patents in play were put forth by the plaintiffs. In the counter suit we added some patents and dropped the 584. Perhaps we dropped the 584 to keep ARM out or perhaps it was prior to the recert?

Just checked some of the stay proceedings and noted this part.

< It was not until February 4, 2009, that this Court Up until the filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay, Defendants had agreed, in writing, to dismiss the ‘584 patent from this case. However, Defendants subsequently reconsidered their position and have stated that they no longer intend to dismiss the ‘584 patent from this case. See Davis Declaration, denied Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. [Dkt. No. 96]. >

A bit garbled but it would appear that we did want to get the 584 back in after dropping it. And apparently denied? Well, the fact that we wanted the 584 back in is good news to me. That at least answers the question of whether it still had teeth. YES!

Opty