Thanks SGE. It was this type of explanation I was looking for. But, before we put it to bed - a couple other points and questions

1. Do you have any explanation of Exhibit A.?

2. You state -But remember the nature of a Patent Indemnification clause: it is used in cases where no infringement is actually expected, but is insurance just in case infringement is later discovered. Thus, it is a "blanket" clause, covering any infringement of any patent in the product/service received from that supplier.

Don't you suppose Fujitsu/ NEC thought they were doing just this with an imdemnification with ARM. (I don't really know if Fujitsu uses ARM.) However, if the ARM designs don't infringe on the 336, but the Fujitsu and NEC inhouse designs do. They would have to clear up any infringement on the 336 on their own wouldn't they?

3. You state- IMO, the only way they could escape liability (placing such liability solely on ARM) is via a Patent Indemnification clause in all their purchase orders to ARM.

I guess this what I'm asking. Is Fujitsu/NEC saying, "we are not liable for the 584, ARM is, and we will license all of our own infringements.

Can you reference me the previous post you made. I read them all but might have got lost in the detail.

Blow me out of the water, I'm up for it. LOL

Thanks! jldmt