The Court renewed the 90-day stay at the request of TPL, Acer, and HTC. A case management conference has been set for February 12, 2010 in which the Court would decide whether or not to continue maintaining the stay. During the November 2009 CMC, Barco requested that the Court lift the stay as to U.S. Patent No. 5,784,584 (the “’584 Patent”), based upon the fact that a reexamination certificate had issued in July of 2009. Barco also stated it intended to file a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement based on a prior court ruling. As part of their answers to Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claims, Defendants asserted as an affirmative defense that Plaintiffs had infringed all the patents-in-suit. See e.g. Case No. 5:08-cv-00877, Dkt. # 99 at p. 5, line 11-12. The Court ordered that TPL “will decide within 30 days whether it [is] going to assert a counterclaim on the ’584 [P]atent. If so, [TPL] will notify counsel and file the counterclaim forthwith. If it decides not to then the stay is l fted as to the ’584 so that … the declaratory plaintiff can bring a motion for summary judgment.” 11/13/2009 Tr. at 10:1-8. On December 10, 2009, TPL filed a motion to dismiss Barco’s claim for declaratory judgment as to the ’584 Patent on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On January 22, 2010, Barco filed its opposition to TPL’s motion to dismiss. On January 29, 2010, TPL filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss. Along with its reply brief, TPL filed a signed covenant not to sue on the ’584 Patent in favor of Barco only. TPL has not taken similar action with respect to Acer or HTC. The hearing for this motion has been set for February 12, 2010, the same time as the CMC for which this CMC Statement is prepared.

Based on the above, I believe the "motion to dismiss" which I noted was part of the CMC last friday, was in reference to the "584" only and was not a motion to dismiss because of settlement.