There's no reason for the court to construe anymore claims of our '774 patent since the judge ruled against EDIG on key claim B (below) and in effect, removed that patent from this case (unless some Exhibit B defendants don't use RAM in their products). The other key claim was claim A (below), "flash memory", which is found in the '774 and '737 patent. EDIG is asking the court to rule on the term "flash memory" with regard to our '737 patent. If she agrees and rules in our favor, could change the playing field a bit in this case. If not in our favor, this case will be over quickly and hopefully on to the appellate process.

-------------------

A. “flash memory” (Claims 1, 2 and 19 of the ‘774 Patent and Claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: block erasable non-volatile memory

Defendants’ Proposed Construction: block erasable non-volatile memory that is the main memory of the system

B. “a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals and is capable of retaining recorded digital information for storage in nonvolatile form” (Claims 1 and 19 of the ‘774 Patent)

Ruled on by Judge Krieger.