GOOD RESPONSE FROM EDIG ATTORNEY RE SOME MISSING PAGES BY EDIG
AND THE CONTENTS OF 932 PAGES and following claim by edig at the bottom
of page " Indeed, the claims of the asserted patents are broad in scope and focus on the fundamental aspects of using flash memory to record and store audio data on handheld recording/playback devices such as modern cameras, camcorders, and mobile phones."
Samsung’s Motion should be denied because it improperly seeks to: (1) compel further detail that e.Digital already has agreed to provide by March 31; (2) compel further detail that e.Digital already has agreed to provide following Samsung’s forthcoming supplementation of its incomplete Rule 3-4 disclosures; (3) prematurely resolve issues of claim construction by seeking to limit e.Digital to an infringement theory that Samsung mischaracterized as deficient; and (4) absolve itself of infringement liability for new products that it introduces after the date e.Digital served its initial contentions (November 21, 2008).
After sifting through the 42 pages of hyperbole and innuendo that comprise most of Samsung’s Motion,1
(Yungwirth Decl. at Ex. B, p.1, emphasis added). However, as e.Digital’s counsel represented at the final meet-and-confer in Dallas just two days before Samsung made its 932 page filing, it becomes clear that Samsung was determined to file a motion to compel, rather than timely resolve alleged deficiencies in e.Digital’s infringement contentions. This is most clearly evidenced by the fact that the Motion seeks to compel, among other things, the same additional detail that e.Digital already agreed to provide by March 31 -- hardly the discovery “impasse” that the local rules require be present before filing a motion. (See Declaration of Matthew Yungwirth (“Yungwirth Decl.”) (filed herewith), at ¶ 3 and Ex. A). As Samsung confirmed in its recent March 12 letter, it filed its Motion because e.Digital’s proposed March 31 deadline to provide further details that Samsung claims are necessary and lacking simply was not soon enough: “And Samsung’s position remains the same today as it always has -- if e.Digital immediately provides adequate infringement contentions to Samsung . . . as required by the local Patent Rules, Samsung will withdraw its motion.”
The total length of Samsung’s filing is 923 pages that include 42 pages of argument -- 15 page Motion, 19 page Attachment A, and 8 page Appendices (as opposed to Exhibits) to the Declaration of Christopher M. Gerson. These three documents contain Samsung’s arguments. Although Samsung complied with the letter of Local Rule 7(a)(2) and the Court’s September 25, 2008 Order by filing a 15 page “motion,” it did not comply with the spirit of the Rule or Order because its arguments actually span 42 pages, not including the Declarations or exhibits thereto.
e.Digital filed this patent infringement action against Samsung and six other defendants in this case alleging infringement of the four patents-in-suit. Samsung is the sole remaining defendant.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
2
A. e.Digital’s Investigation of the Accused Products The accused Samsung products are handheld recording/playback devices, which are alleged to infringe the patents-in-suit because they are capable of recording sound data onto flash memory as claimed in the asserted apparatus and method claims.
I.
e.Digital filed this patent infringement action against Samsung and six other defendants in this case alleging infringement of the four patents-in-suit. Samsung is the sole remaining defendant.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
2
A. e.Digital’s Investigation of the Accused Products The accused Samsung products are handheld recording/playback devices, which are alleged to infringe the patents-in-suit because they are capable of recording sound data onto flash memory as claimed in the asserted apparatus and method claims.
As part of its pre-filing investigation of the defendants’ products, e.Digital conducted diligence of the potentially infringing products and prepared detailed infringement claim charts for representative products. e.Digital’s diligence included searching publicly available sources of information of which it was aware to learn more about the operation of the accused products and to confirm the functionality of those products met the claim limitations. (See Declaration of James Y.C. Sze (“Sze Decl.”) (filed herewith), at ¶¶ 8-9). Most of the publicly available
2 See Doc. Nos. 93, 123, 134, 143, and 146 (Orders of dismissal following settlements); and 136 (second motion to stay pending finalizing terms of settlement and dismissal).
3
information that e.Digital obtained consists of high-level functionality descriptions, rather than details regarding the architecture of the processors as implemented in the accused products. However, that level of detail is sufficient to satisfy e.Digital’s pre-filing obligations and to put the defendants on notice of e.Digital’s infringement theories because the asserted claims do not drill down into processor intricacies such that meaningful distinctions are made from one brand of processor to another. (Id.). Indeed, the claims of the asserted patents are broad in scope and focus on the fundamental aspects of using flash memory to record and store audio data on handheld recording/playback devices such as modern cameras, camcorders, and mobile phones. e.Digital’s claim charts, therefore, identified the components of the accused products that it believed performed the functionality encompassed by the asserted claims.
