< I was just pointing out if I read one of the pacers correctly that Barco claimed we asserted infringement of chips they claimed were not in the products we specified. I agree this would be very incompetent on our part.>

Once there is a patent infringement suit, the patent owner is requird by law to inform the infringer of what and where infringement is taking place. The ICs. They can be amended early on, but at some point the court will say enough.

Barco is not claiming that their products do not contain infringing electronics, only that the ICs and corresponding evidence was not sufficient. I believe we have passed the point of amending those ICs, so if they are not leagally sufficient, the court can provide Barco with SJ. TPL has previously stated that the ICs and documentation is more than what is required by law. I believe further argument is due today.

The ICs were prepared w/o the luxury of court discovery, so they are based on whatever was available. It appears that TPL may have analyzed chips in the same chip family as representative chips claiming they have the same features. Probably because info on the exact chip wasn't available. So not really incompetent. You can only work with what you can reasonably obtain.

A final thought. I believe the case is three years old. Somewhat late in the game to be arguing that we have not provided satisfactory infringement notice. TPL said something like that in the previous filing.

If there is a filing today, we probably will not get to see it until Monday. In the meantime perhaps the above is helpful.

Opty