JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2011 ORDER REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation and the Undersigned Defendants hereby submit the following Joint Statement In Response to June 28, 2011 Order Regarding Claim Construction (Doc. #395; “Order”) as required by the Court at page 16 of its Order.

e.Digital and the Undersigned Defendants met and conferred by telephone conferences on July 15 and 22, 2011 regarding the substance of this Joint Statement and exchanged drafts of this submission. The parties report and propose as follows:

1. The ‘774 Patent: e.Digital contends that the Order construes certain aspects of the “sole memory” limitation of the ‘774 Patent, and although e.Digital disputes the Court’s construction, it is prepared to stipulate to non-infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘774 Patent with respect to the accused products offered by the Defendants identified in Exhibit A.

With respect to the Defendants identified in Exhibit B, e.Digital contends that additional discovery from those Defendants is necessary for e.Digital to determine whether a stipulation of non-infringement is appropriate. Accordingly, e.Digital proposes that it be permitted to take limited discovery of those Defendants identified in Exhibit B (in the form of obtaining additional documents and/or sworn declarations or depositions) confirming that each of the accused products use “RAM or any other memory system, while engaging the CODEC, DSP (as applicable), and memory control functions, [or] storing the fully-manipulated data.” See Order at p. 16.

The Defendants identified in Exhibit B contend that they have produced documents sufficient for e.Digital to conclude that their products do not infringe the asserted claims of either of the patents-in-suit, under the Court’s claim construction, and that e.Digital does not need further discovery in order to enter into the stipulation of non-infringement. In order to expedite the conclusion of this case, however, the Defendants identified in Exhibit B are willing to provide limited declarations and/or limited additional documents to clarify any non-infringement issues relating to the Court’s claim construction, as follows: (a) within 30 days after the date of this Joint Statement, the Defendants identified in Exhibit B will provide declarations and/or additional documents to counsel for e.Digital; (b) within 45 days after the date of this Joint Statement, counsel for such parties will meet and confer with counsel for e.Digital to determine whether any further discovery is needed; (c) within 75 days after the date of this Joint Statement, such parties will complete any discovery, subject to additional time being needed to conduct foreign depositions, if necessary; (d) within 90 days after this Joint Statement, the parties will file a joint report to the Court advising of the status and whether any issues remain to be resolved with respect to e.Digital’s claims of infringement of the ‘774 Patent and related discovery issues.Defendants do not believe depositions are necessary or appropriate, and reserve the right to object to any demand Plaintiff may make for depositions.

2. The ‘737 Patent: e.Digital contends that the Order did not construe any terms of claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent and, therefore, the Order is not dispositive with respect to that claim. Accordingly, e.Digital proposes that the next step in this case is for the Court to enter an order construing the term “flash memory” of claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent. Defendants acknowledge the Court’s statement at footnote 1 of the Order and believe, as stated later in the Order at page 16, that the Court intended to construe “flash memory” in claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent with the same effect and outcome urged by Defendants. Nevertheless, if further construction of the Order is likely to facilitate e.Digital’s stipulation of non-infringement of this Patent, thereby avoiding the need for summary judgment proceedings and simplifying and further expediting these proceedings for disposition, the Undersigned Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request for further construction of the term “flash memory” as used in the ‘737 Patent. The parties believe the current record is sufficient for any further construction of the term “flash memory” and do not request another hearing for this purpose.

3. Continuation of Deadlines: The parties propose that until such time as the Court enters an order construing “flash memory” in claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent, all deadlines in the case remain continued, except with respect to the discovery requested in paragraph 1, herein.

4. e.Digital proposes that following the Court’s construction of “flash memory” and the completion of limited discovery described in paragraph 1 above, the parties meet and confer as to proper next steps in the case, and to submit a supplemental joint statement within 30 days of the entry of an order construing the term “flash memory” in claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent or by the 90 day deadline set forth in § 1(d) above, whichever is later. Defendants do not oppose this proposal.

Dated this 28th day of July, 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth

L. Norwood Jameson (003970)

Matthew S. Yungwirth (783597)

DUANE MORRIS LLP

Footnotes:

1 e.Digital conferred by email with counsel for Defendants who did not participate in the July 15 and 22 telephone conferences.

2 e.Digital and the Canon Defendants have reached an agreement in principle and anticipate filing a Motion to Dismiss the Canon Defendants.

EXHIBIT A

CANON USA, INC.

CANON, INC.

HTC AMERICA, INC.

HTC CORPORATION

MARANTZ AMERICA, INC.

D&M HOLDINGS U.S. INC.

D&M HOLDINGS, INC.

NOKIA, INC.

NOKIA CORPORATION

VTECH ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA, LLC

EXHIBIT B

COBY ELECTRONICS CORP.

DXG TECHNOLOGY (U.S.A.), INC.

DXG TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

IMATION CORPORATION

KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

KYOCERA WIRELESS CORPORATION

KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

KYOCERA CORPORATION

SAKAR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

SAMSON TECHNOLOGIES CORP.