Last October-November, when Samsung settlement was being discussed, we covered all these issues...

The case, as I recall dealth with a situtation like T.I.-EDIG...

If A agrees to have B use its IP on products they sell on the open Market, and then C uses said product to to make widgets and thus profit thereby, can A sue C for infringing on its IP?...

There are numerous variations on this; but, in that case the Court held that C could not be sued by A because C paid for the product marketed by B as it was intended by the parties.

The basic legal question as I recall had something to do with the intent of A-B when they agreed to have B's IP introduced into the market place.

I suspect Samsung raised that defense, and threw in the fact they had applied for their own patents in the area. However, they worked out a cross-licensing agreement which benefits both parties, as DM probably convinced them the INTENT of parties was that both parties should benefit, and not SAMSUNG alone...

As regards EDIG past partners, the controlling question is going to be what was the INTENT of parties when they partnered with EDIG?...

Hope this helps...

Gil...