Weren't we granted leave to amend because Barcos IC (chip) suppliers would not provide the necessary schematics/information TPL believed they needed to honor the NDoC PLRs regarding infringement contentions? Hence the motion to grant leave to amend the ICs? I'm inferring from a prior post of yours, as I was under the same understanding. Otherwise, if the court believed Barco provided enough information, how could TPL be granted leave o amend so late in the game? Corrections/comments welcome.