As I have read thru the E Tex filings, I have come across multi instances where Arm cores were mentioned &/or included in those microprocessors that are accused of infringing the '336.. even by the accused infringers themselves. Now why Arm refers only to infringing the '584 (and not the '336) I do not know..?? I have yet to see TTC's response to Arm's filing.. If Arm is to be fully involved in this litigation as they seem now to be, I absolutely, positively, 100% expect Arm to be charged with infringing the '336 patent, and probably the '148 as well. From a prev Arm Yahoo post of mine.. "...in addition to the '584 accusations, TPL/TTC has also accused a Matsushita (Panasonic) chip, the microcomupter MN1A7T0200, which has an Arm core, of infringing the '336 patent. You will find this in Document 96: TPL's Motion to Correct Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Exhibit I page 8. This accusation is filed again in Document 102: Exhibit I, TPL's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringment Contentions page 6... and yet again, stated by Panasonic themselves, in Document 108: Opposition of MEI, PNA & JVC to TPL's Motion to Amend It's Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Main Doc page 6. It appears to me that Arm has simply chosen not to include this accusation in their response to intervene. ?? This link is to Panasonic's users manual of the accused core.. click on #5 'Clock Generator' for a schematic including its 'High-Speed Oscillator clock' (I know, obviously this schematic doesn't prove anything, but you'd think they would have at least labled the clock something diffrent).. " *click on '5. Clock Generator' https://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/micom/manual/pdf/26002-024e.pdf