To continue, TPL referenced the parent chips and not the specific ones claiming the clocking technology is identical across the chip sets. TPL is most certainly correct, but the court needs to make sure all of the details are in order according to the PLRs so TPL needs to reference the specific chip that infringes and not the 'parent' chip. TPL in all liklihood did that as no Pacer has been submitted. Judge Ware is taking his time and according to NDoC statistics, he is one of the slower Judges. Occams Razor. Crystal clear.