You said the following:...

"It appears that Samsung is attempting to discredit eDigital's infringement theory regarding the 20 phones buy suggesting eDigital identified a non-infringing phone as the representative phone in their suit. "If this is true, and the phone identified as the representitive example does not infringe our patents, then this is a major blunder."

I for one appreciate the hard work you do here. But you "Assupmptions" about what Samsung is trying to do have led you to incorrect conclusions...

Samsung attorneys are not trying to discredit anything. They are the ones who are raising the same issues which were the grounds raised in their Motions for Summary Judgements which were dismissed as part of the stipulations approved by the Court when EDIG dropped 108 and 445 "INTHIS LAW SUIT"...

In layman language Samsung is saying, "We didn't infringe on any of EDIG patenets because all we did was make some cell phone that had the ability to to USE SD cards put out in the market by others, (i.e. SanDisk), and told our customers to go buy those cards and put them in the cell phones which made them work?!?"...

This is a LEGITIMATE AND NOVAL ATTEMPT AT EXTENIDING THE LAW IN THIS AREA...

There is an appellate Court decision, (9th Circuit I believe), which stands for the proposition that if you permitted your technology to be placed in the course of commerce via products sold by a "Partner" of yours, then you cannot sue a third party who uses the poducts sold by your partner having your technology as an infringer...

Samsung asserts that if they make gadgets which become operational by usind let us say SanDisk SD CRADS, then they are not infringing on EDIG TECH....

THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED IN THIS MATTER BECAUSE:...

1) They have already dropped said defense which was raised in the Motions for Summary Judgment...

2) The issues raised in the 9th Circuit decision were case specific. They entailed using of products that were incoporated in the infringer's product who paid good money and bought the chip that contained the allegedly infringed upon technology, from someone who had permission to sell it to the public. And the "INTENT" of the parties involved was the governing factor in that case...

Here Samsung is claiming they are a mere "FACILITATOR" of infingement by others who use their cell phones to infringe on EDIG TECH. by buying the SD cards to be used in the cell phones Samsung makes...

IMO, this is an effort by Samsung Lawyers to "EXTEND" the law enunciated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. There has never been an INTENT by EDIG to have its technology pirated by by the like s of Samsung who could claim immunity by making products that will use SD cards which may be produced by EDIG partners who were to send "Customers" to EDIG after they sold any products to the likes of Samsung, and even if they get past the fact they have already dropped those claims as part of the ORDER signed by Judge WARD, their attempt to shunt EDIG's claims to general public who are directed by SAMSUNG to go and buy the SD cards shall fail..

If anyone was smart in this case it was DM who got the issues beyond 108, and 445, and has made sure he will get his MARKMAN RULING by Februrary 2010...

Good Luck to all...

Gil...