Since we know DM is not planning on calling Mr. Maltiel as an expert witness, and they have no other experts identified as testifying, they must believe they will get positive Markman results relying mostly on the intrinsic evidence.Intrinsic evidence is usually written evidence, however fact based testimony also qualifies (such as an inventor’s testimony).Intrinsic evidence is defined as,

“Information necessary for the determination of an issue in a lawsuit that is gleaned from the provisions of a document itself [i.e., the ‘774 & ‘737 patents], as opposed to testimony from a witness or the terms of other writings that have not been admitted by the court for consideration by the trier of fact.”

DM does have some extrinsic evidence they plan on using, such as technical dictionaries and other writings.

----------

From Doc 349:

Based on the parties’ respective Markman briefing and the limited value that extrinsic evidence plays in the Markman process, e.Digital determined that it is unnecessary to call Mr. Maltiel to testify at the Markman hearing.

----------

From Doc 296:

B. The Extrinsic Evidence

Finally, although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862. Among other things, the Court may look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether a preferred embodiment is excluded by a certain claim construction “so long as the extrinsic evidence does not ‘contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic evidence.’” Dow Chemical Co. v. Sumitomo Chemical Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 and fn 13 (Fed. Cir. 2001) citing Pitney Bowes, 182 at 1309.

Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms. At the same time, however, technical dictionaries and treatises also may provide definitions that are too broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. See Phillips at 1317.

Similarly, expert testimony may assist a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, as long as such testimony is not unsupported and conclusory. See id. at 1318. However, “a court should discount any expert testimony ‘that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves, the written description, and the prosecution history, in other words, with the written record of the patent.’” Id. citing Key Pharms. v. Hercon Lab. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998).