Well done letgojoe!

I do suggest one minor tweak (which will probably have to be made at some point in the future anyway...). On EDIG v. Osram, you note the partial dismissal of the case as pertains to Osram, but that Curtis is still kicking. I suggest breaking Curtis off into its own "line" (even if related docket number is the same). IMO, from this point forward, it should be tracked alone, thus providing more clarity. Again, at some point it will probably have to be broken out anyway.

Hope this makes sense.

Thank you!

SGE