Thanks JEFOTHER ,

if you read carefully those paragraphs as they written in legal term it appears

SAMSUNG in hind site accepted e.DIGITAL view on first round of infringement list

but they dont like the second amended infringement contentions.

"a new allegedly infringing functionality for the limitations related to the storage of

audio data to flash memory, one that is different from the voice memo function it previously

cited for the SGH-D900"

. In my view this

sounds major achievement by e.DIGITAL legal representative.

In other words, e.Digital contends that its prior charts satisfied its disclosure

obligations for those phones, even though they did not accurately depict the SGH-D900 itself.

Assuming this argument were valid, there would have been no need for e.Digital to

identify a new representative product or to submit new ICs, because its prior disclosure allegedly

sufficed.