According to these court documents, the cited Panasonic product with an Arm core  infringes the ‘336…  Here’s a link to the User’s Manual..

https://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/micom/manual/pdf/26002-024e.pdf

Mashusita (Panasonic) microcomupter MN1A7T0200

1--  Document 96: TPL's Motion to Correct Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Exhibit I page 6

http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/jalitigation/show_case_doc%2096.pdf%20336%20Arm.pdf

Attached hereto as Exhibit C are infringement claim charts showing how each MEI

Accused Chip infringes asserted claims of the ‘336 Patent.

MEI’s Accused Chips [Exhibit C]

Microcomputer  MN1A7T0200

32 Bit Microcomputer ARM

2-- Document 102: Exhibit I, TPL's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringment Contentions page 5

http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/jalitigation/show_case_doc102.pdf%20336%20Arm.pdf

Attached herto as Exhibit C are infringement claim charts showing how each MEI Accused Chip infringes asserted claims of the '336 patent

MEI's Accused Chips [Exhibt C]

Microcomputer MN1A7T0200

3--  Document 108: Opposition of MEI, PNA & JVC to TPL's Motion to Amend It's Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Main Doc page 6

http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/jalitigation/show_case_doc108.pdf%20336%20Arm.pdf

Similarly, for the “ARM” family of chips, TPL provided separate claim charts asserting that the MN1A7T0200 chip infringes the ’336 and ’584 patents…

-------

My thoughts are if these ARM cores are cited here they are accused... the '584 Arm accusation appears to be cited in the same manner, as in Microcomputer MN1A92070R & MN1A7T0200 cited in Doc 96.. 

Ron..   I ask you (once again, sorry & many thanks)  Why does Arm not respond to '336 accusation?