I was amused by one of their contentions where they state that two of their chips (that would be included if TPL's motion is granted) were produced prior to a chip that TPL originally identified.  Sounds like they're suggesting that these two earlier chips constitute prior art since TPL didn't include them in their original motion.

So let me get this straight.  A thief steals from two houses in a neighborhood and gets caught stealing from a third.  In court, his lawyers argue that he shouldn't be tried for the first two offenses because he wasn't caught stealing from those houses.  In fact, he should be let off because he was "allowed" to steal from the first two houses which suggests there is nothing wrong with stealing from the third.

I'm not a laywer, but that argument seems pretty ludicrous to me.

Best regards.