You wrote...
"Either way, a positive Markman ruling would relate only to that one case."...
I see a difference between EDIG and PTSC case here. Admitting that I am not a TECHI, (Hope Doni can chime in here), I see PTSC patenets having a "Limited" coverage relating to the "Time Clock" regulating the "Speed" of the chips. That was the whole argument with the ARM group of the comapnies...
On the other hand EDIG patents are "Structural". They are a "Unique" method of facilitating massive digital data transmission through manipulation of "FLash", thus dispensing with the need for massive hardware, and cutting down on amount of "electrons", (power), needed to acheive the objectives...
That is why no one has been able to build a better mouse-trap in the 10 years I have been aware of EDIG and its Patents...
IMO a "MARKMAN RULING" in VIVITAR case would pass on the validity of EDIG claims, and will have application to the entire "FLASH" utilization market. A positive "Ruling" in VIVITAR will make DM's job much much easier in the next 173 filings...
GLTA...
Gil...
