IQ Online
**
*[Advanced Search]*
The Smart Approach to Designing with the ARM" Architecture
*
*
IntelligenceTechnology In-DepthspecialDesign Strategies and MethodologiesConsumer LifestylesMarket WatchTools of the TradeDeveloper Resources
*
*
*
*
 Right navigation arrow Home
*
 Down navigation arrow IQ Online News
*
 Right navigation arrow A Week at a Glance
*
 Right navigation arrow ARM News
*
 Right navigation arrow ARM Partners' News
*
 Right navigation arrow Industry & Business
*
 Right navigation arrow News Archive
*
 Right navigation arrow IQ Print Version
*
 Right navigation arrow ViewPoint
*
 Right navigation arrow Partners
*
 Right navigation arrow About IQ Online
*
*
*
*
ARM in the News
*


13 May 2008

Court Ruling Means ARM Technology Does Not Infringe Patents

ARM has announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed on Friday, May 9 that ARM’s products do not infringe United States Patent No. 5,784,584 asserted by Technology Properties Limited, Inc. and Patriot Scientific Corporation.

The Federal Circuit’s decision confirms ARM’s success in the litigation brought in Marshall, Texas entitled Technology Properties Limited, Inc. v. Fujitsu, et al. The ARM products covered by this binding decision of non-infringement include the ARM7™, ARM9™, ARM9E™, ARM10E™, ARM11™ and Cortex™ microprocessor core families.

TPL and Patriot previously admitted that ARM’s products did not infringe the ’584 patent unless the Federal Circuit overturned the lower court’s decision in favor of ARM. TPL and Patriot previously acknowledged that ARM’s products do not infringe the other patents asserted in the Texas litigation, United States Patent Nos. 5,809,336 and 6,598,148.

Prior to ARM’s victory, cases involving the three patents asserted by TPL and Patriot have always been settled out of court by the parties involved. This is the first instance in which the court has issued a final ruling in favor of either party.
The Federal Circuit’s ruling of non-infringement does not impact the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office holding the asserted ’584 patent claim to be invalid and anticipated by 11 separate prior art references in reexamination proceedings.

*
« Back

*
*
Privacy Policy | Legal Statement | Site Map