Agreed re the worthwhile posts. The preface to the question:

"The extent to which the defendants are using a shotgun defense is almost laughable"

Many posts are in agreement with that premise and the two I linked were to substantiate the potential flaws in their arguments i.e. Shaw is supposedly aware of deficiencies in a ring oscillator system clock during the period 1995-2000, yet both ARM and Intel had no problems with it during the same time-frame.

"So the question is whether such a defense actually has legal merit, or is it more likely just window dressing to make their case just sound better/give them more negotiating chips when they sit down at the negotiating table?"

If the defense is almost laughable and also based on questionable and readily refutable "facts", how will they have more negotiating chips? Might a better question have been, Does this strengthen TPL's hand in negotiations?

Be well