jldmt -

1. I'd have to have another look at Exhibit A. Can you post a link?

2. Fujitsu/NEC may have used the clause in some or all of their contracts (the clause may come at a premium/extra cost, so they may have used it sometimes and sometimes not due to budget constraints on a particular project). Their settlement would almost certainly cover all infringement, whether the chips were produced in-house or by others - the settlement would cover all instances where they financially benefitted or may benefit in the future (that's the point). The intent of a settlement is to resolve the issue in total, leaving no future mess to clean up.

3. I actually made that statement poorly. The clause in a contract with ARM would NOT allow them to escape liability for infringement when they used product from other suppliers or made in-house. Again, it's about benefitting financially.  The clause only protects you from instances of infringement where the infringement is due solely to the use of product from a supplier and the clause was incorporated in all contracts with that specific supplier. No supplier (in-house), you're on the hook. Supplier, no clause, you're on the hook (along with the supplier).

Not trying to "blow you out of the water" - just trying to help you and others based on my understanding (and remember: I KNOW nuttin'!). As for getting lost in the detail, just try putting my responses to words! LOL Can make my brain hurt!

Hopefully the above is an adequate response re: #2/3.

SGE