Not sure what your question is.

Barco requested more IC info (in the form of a motion to strike). The court agreed that the request is justified. I'm not sure why the court allowed us to amend the ICs a second time. It was our argument that the present state of ICs were already given the OK by the prior judge. Obviously, there was different thinking between the prior judge and the present SM/court. That probably played a role in the decision for leave to amend, more than anything else. Perhaps too, the SM knew that discovery had provided the concrete info that Barco was looking for, making the further amended ICs worth the wait. - Infringement Contentions disappearing, or actual infringement becoming evident.

I think that ends that particular series of events. There is nothing more for any party to do, IMO. If the court was not satisfied that the additional info was sufficient for the purposes intended, I suspect that the court would have demanded, in a filing, that we need to provide more than what we did or allow Barco to motion for SJ on any claim for which ICs remained deficient. Same for Barco. If not satisified, they would have said so in a filing with the court. The silence on the issue, means both were satisfied and nothing further needs to be addressed on the IC subject. IMO.

Opty