Thanks for the reference. It is an important case, relating to patents other than the expired ones and to the strange view of patent exhaustion in the DRAM ITC matter. But so far it's a case concerning procedure rather than substance. Basically, a licensee wants a court to declare that no matter what disputes it may have with Tessera over royalty payments, its customers are protected from legal action by Tessera. Tessera fought that on the basis that since the licensee was in good standing, there was no dispute. Their backup argument was that if this case was to be litigated, there was another case it should be combined with. Tessera won the first round, but it was just reversed. (That is, the case will be heard; there has been no argument yet on the merits)
Tessera wants to litigate the substance of this, but not this way or at this time (Or against a counter-party that's generally a good licensee). So the fun part to watch is going to be the scrambling for combining cases and controlling the pace. An interesting feature here is that in support of its claim that a license was needed, Tessera asserted the expired patents and exactly one unexpired one.