While I too hope that the settlement agreements contain such a statement, I believe the inverse would most likely be the case, and that such a statement would not appear in the actual agreement, but in associated PRs.  As I recall, TPL's first target, Intel, specifically stated that they admitted no infringement in the associated PR. Intel stated that, while they admit no past or current infringement, they licensed the MMP in case of possible infringement in the future. 

No company wants to admit wrong-doing, or that they don't have the wherewithall to develop their technologies independently. Thus, I believe that it is more common than not that licensees, as a condition of settlement, include a statement in the associated PR as did Intel to save face while also providing some justification for the expense (i.e., we did nothing wrong, but being smart forward-thinkers, we're making this strategic move).

We could look back at some of the PRs for other licensees for similar statements. And that's where they'll be, in the associated PRs.  There is no reason to include such language in the actual settlement agreement (1. What purpose would it serve? None. 2. Would we or anyone but an authorized insider ever see the actual agreement? No, actual contractual documents are usually designated Company Private and protected as such). 

Also, it seems to me that the prudent counsel would prefer to just be silent in this regard. Admitting infringement could have very serious ramifications on the licensee's customers.

If a licensee such as Intel admitted to past or current infringement, all their customers who did not include a Patent Indemnification clause in their purchase orders with Intel (including the clause would protect them under Intel's license) would automatically be on the hook. It would fall under the category of "How to really piss off your customers".

I KNOW you two would have figured this out if you thought it through....

These things I think I KNOW!

SGE