Free
Message: Re: My opinion on where we are
5
Jul 31, 2011 01:25PM

"It seems to me that DM felt they could prevail in the initial ruling, but if not they had a back up plan which will bring this thing full circle back to where we wanted to be in the first place."

If one looks at the big picture, e.Digital is now guaranteed an issue to carry forward to other cases that the court ruled on "not RAM or any other memory system", "(as applicable)" for analog or digital issues.

Hopefully, through court ordered limited discovery, e.Digital is now analyzing, for a select few, if they are infringing the issue that is in play for 774, that being, " use RAM or any other memory system".

The defendants seem to not want to venture that discovery for obvious reasons, as either condition is revealed.

"e.Digital contends that the Order construes certain aspects of the “sole memory” limitation of the ‘774 Patent,"........."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.

When the court ventures the flash memory issue as it relates to 737, necessitating RAM resources (digital process) .....the defendants are then conditioned to the opposite as detailed above....according to whatever discovery e.Digital can obtain.

The defendants are going to be trapped between two separate issues....where e.Digital was initially looking to have those conditions condensed on the one patent for both issues.

It's up to the court to rule on the 737 flash memory issue and then force the discovery issue.

Claim term A...

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 "

................

For 737 it's a matter of the flash memory being recognized as a processing agent as the defendants want....or block erasable non-volatile memory as a formatted storage element for digital storage.

doni

9
Jul 31, 2011 09:20PM
8
Jul 31, 2011 11:41PM
10
Aug 01, 2011 10:13AM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply