The Original Deadline

TPL filed its Original PICs without including claim charts
for every accused product

because, in view of the large number of accused products,
it reasonably believed all parties

would benefit by using claim charts for representative
products rather than for all accused

products, and that providing claim charts for all accused
products would merely add bulk without

adding useful information. Accordingly, TPL believed that
using claim charts for representative

parts was a rational and practical way to streamline an
otherwise complicated case. Moreover,

TPL's counsel had advantageously employed representative
parts in other semiconductor patent

infringement litigation; and there is sound case authority
for this approach in the Northern

District of California, which employs essentially the same
local rules as this district. Indeed,

MEI acknowledged the reasonableness of TPL's approach,
citing Northern District of California

this particular case TPL had not

demonstrated that it was appropriate to use representative
parts. Cook ¶ 16.

Presumably in view of TPL's good faith belief that using
representative parts was in

reasonable compliance with the Patent Local Rules, this
Court denied TPL 's original request

without prejudice to serving amended PICs in compliance
with the Local Rules. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs are now requesting explicit leave to serve the
claim charts and amended PICs, each of

which were provided to Defendants in December.

C. The Importance Of The Thing That Would Be Excluded

If the family member chips were excluded, this litigation
would not resolve the entire

dispute between the parties. Further proceedings, such as
additional patent infringement lawsuits

or contempt proceedings, would be necessary to fully
adjudicate plaintiffs' infringement claims.

It would be wasteful of judicial and party resources if
plaintiffs were required to assert

infringement by the remaining members of a chip family in a
second lawsuit involving identical

parties in which the identical patents and identical claims
would be asserted.

Moreover, Defendants assert that these claims, if not
included in any judgment resulting

from the present lawsuit, would be barred from assertion in
later proceedings by res judicata.

While plaintiffs disagree with this assessment, if
Defendants are correct, this would reduce the

value of plaintiffs' claim by orders of magnitude, further
evidencing the importance of the claims

which would be excluded if the proposed amendment were
denied.