Thanks, for that explanation. Interesting that the SM would not see the amended ICs. Hence, since Barco has not said anything about the amended ICs, that is not what is holding up the Markman results. I take that as good news.

If we indeed obtained all that we wanted from Seagate (see my post on that), do you think we might include enough specifics in the amended ICs so as to litigate infringement, just as we claimed Barco was attempting to do? Would we provide a revised IC covering microprocessor xxx in Barco product yyy infringing on claim 123 of patent 45678 based on Seagate input zzz and so on.

What does Barco do with that kind of specific info. Why wouldn't we do it, if we had it? If we can bring Barco down using just the ICs, wouldn't that put us in a good position to deal with the other two?

Opty