Correction in my post regarding Doc 148. At first I didn’t see any reference to non-U.S. sales but after reading again, see a mention by Samsung in footnote 3 below:

3 e.Digital also apparently failed to investigate whether the over 130 Accused Products are actually made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Samsung in the U.S. As a result, e.Digital improperly accused over 70 non-U.S. products. e.Digital now refers to various third party gray-market resellers of international mobile phones to try to justify having initially accused these products. (See Opp. at 8; Gerson Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. X; Ex. Y.) Significantly, however, e.Digital does not contend that Samsung itself sells these products in the U.S. Indeed, e.Digital has agreed to remove them from its list of Accused Products. (See Ex. Z.)

From Doc 147, EDIG agreed to remove 76 products from their list only until such time as discovery shows that the products were indeed sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States as EDIG initially believed. In fact, EDIG has since reconfirmed that at least 34 of the 76 products, that Samsung says were definitely not sold in the US, can be purchased via www.amazon.com or www.exoticphones.com.