Sorry if this formats poorly

From Pacer Doc 108:  Motion to Correct Preliminary Infringement Contentions filed by Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co..

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

From Pacer Doc  96: TPL's Motion to Correct Preliminary Infringement Contentions..

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]

Representative

Chip Part Number

Part Description

Chip Family

Claims Asserted

Microcomputer MN101CF91D

8 Bit Microcomputer

MN101(AM1)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Microcontroller MN102xx19

16 Bit Microcomputer

MN102(AM2)

 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Microcomputer MN1A7T0200

32 Bit Microcomputer

ARM

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Microcomputer MN103SC2A

32 Bit Microcomputer

MN103(AM3)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Microcomputer MN103E010H

32 Bit Microcomputer

MN103(AM3)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Microcomputer MN1872423

MOS LSI

MOS LSI

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

------

Perhaps this '336 infringment claim was dropped..

As I have wondered here numerous times, why did ARM only respond to the '584 infringment claim, and not to this claim of '336 infringement, and why did TPL never pursue this... ??  This has bugged me for a long time.. TPL must have a reason for it.  Is it possible Imdemnification clauses mention certain parts covered (as opposed to patents) , and the ring oscillator ('336) was never even considered for indemnification?  (grasping ignorantly here) Or is it as simple as MEI had no indemnification language.. so ARM is not held responsible for this '336 accusation..?