…”The Alternate Remedies Sought By MEI And NEC Should Be Denied 1. NEC's Proposed Alternate Remedy Would Be Unnecessarily and Unfairly Burdensome to TPL, Generate Nothing of Value To the Parties or This Court, And Unnecessarily Complicate This Case. NEC requests that, if TPL is permitted to correct its PICs to include families of chips, TPL should be required to provide claim charts for each chip in each accused chip family. NEC Opp., p. 14. This request should be denied, since this would be unnecessarily and unfairly burdensome to TPL. It would also generate nothing of value to the parties or to this Court, and would unnecessarily complicate the case. TPL has used representative chips to accuse families of chips of infringing the '336 and '584 patents -- although, contrary to Defendants' assertions, not the '148 patent. See, for example, TPL's proposed corrected PICs, pp. 13-14. As to the '336 patent, TPL has accused 68 representative parts of infringing 8 to 10…” “NEC's request should be denied. MEI's Proposed Alternate Remedy Would Unfairly Penalize TPL and Could Provide Defendants With an Undeserved Windfall. MEI requests that, if TPL is permitted to employ claim charts for representative chips, rather than claim charts for all members of all accused families of chips,…” At the risk of over analyzing this, but wanting to at least understand it, …(by the way, thanks WOLF) ... Here we have TPL requesting the court allow them to submit family of chips that infringe and asking the judge to deny the defendants because it would be unfairly burdensome and unfairly penalize TPL. And the judge said NOPE. So the judge is saying it’s ok if TPL is unfairly burdened or unfairly penalized. Just courtroom jockeying? And you all want to say it means nothing? If this was a boxing match, wasn’t this a good left jab that landed? Doesn’t win the fight but it stung pretty good. Hoping for strong legs to carry us the distance and avoid that nasty right hook. No more signings because TPL has just been told their workload went up exponentially?