network/country selection button/item or any other button/item which caused the signal including the two country codes to be sent.” C. TPLLC’s Claim Charts TPLLC originally filed its claim charts articulating its theories of infringement on June 15, 2009. See Doc. No. 1251-3. In light of the Court’s claim-construction rulings dated August 25, 2010, TPLLC moved to amend its claim chart on October 12, 2010. See Doc. No. 1435. The original claim charts contained theories that were unquestionably vulnerable in light of the Court’s claim-construction rulings. Compare, e.g., id. at 9 (stating that the “another country” that is first in an ordered list of countries created by the RU is “different than the second country, but ... may or may not be the first country”), with Doc. No. 1415 at 24 (<HOLDING>). The amended charts delete TPLLC’s
holding that the bia has a duty to explicitly consider country conditions evidence that materially bears on his claim holding that the state department country report constituted substantial evidence to support the agencys finding of changed country conditions in guatemala holding that for purposes of claim 4 another country means a country other than the first and second country explicitly rejecting tpllcs proposed construction holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below holding that 8 cfr  10032c3ii applies to changed country conditions in the country of origin or deportation and not changed personal circumstances in the united states