They also claim that the court wrongly treated those claims as dependent upon the pleading of a material omission. In addition, the plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing their omission-based claims alleging Intel knew of the vulnerabilities in its processors' 2006 redesign that compromised their security. In particular, the plaintiffs focus on the information disparity between the parties, arguing that they could not reasonably have discovered those flaws themselves. Lastly, the plaintiffs contend that the district court wrongly ruled that Intel's omissions were immaterial, whereas they claim the defects concerned core features of security and performance and thus central functions of its processors. Intel's answering brief is due Jan. 20, 2023. Plaintiff representation includes firms Seeger Weiss LLP and Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC, among others. Intel is represented by Williams & Connolly LLP.