I totally agree with what you consider....The Markman issues are but a procedure in the chain of events, however, following along one must keep on top of how the court rules on motions presented.....e.Digital needs the approval of the court on the following....irregardless of it going all the way to Markman or not.

RE: 240

"Plaintiff has taken to heart this Court’s request that the parties work toward a creative approach to discovery that could result in streamlining this case.
Thus, rather than simply fighting for the typical immediate opening of discovery on any and all issues as of the 26(f) conference, Plaintiff proposes a two-phased approach to discovery that is intended to streamline the case. The goal of Phase 1 discovery is to obtain discrete sets of information from Defendants that will crystallize the claims and accused products in dispute, while providing Defendants with the discovery of Plaintiff and other third persons that Defendants believe is necessary to prepare for a Markman hearing.

Toward this end, Plaintiff seeks in Phase I, three categories of information:
(1) certain technical information regarding the operation of Defendants’ products
that is either proprietary or not otherwise reasonably accessible to Plaintiff,
(2) a list of products that meet an “accused product definition” provided by
Plaintiff to Defendants on February 24, 2010, and
(3) any prior art Defendants have in their possession that they believe is relevant
to the Patents-in-Suit.
As soon as Plaintiff obtains this information, it will be better able to inform Defendants of the full set of claims that are at issue, the accused products at issue, and whether Plaintiff will asserted any additional dependent claims based on the prior art identified by Defendants.

"By comparison, Defendants propose to stay all discovery in this case (with the exception of limited initial disclosures and expert discovery on claim construction) until an undetermined date on which the Court may issue a Markman order. In other words, Defendants propose that discovery for all practical purposes be stayed until as late as early-2011. Defendants’ proposal also presents the substantial risk of piecemeal litigation. Under their proposal, Plaintiff will not discover what it needs from Defendants in order to crystallize the claims in dispute and the accused product until after the Court issues a first Markman order. Thus, there exists the real possibility of the need for a second Markman hearing following the true opening of discovery in"

We need the court to go along with e.Digitals approach...

doni