Great post richard. These are hard questions that Fred needs to answer.

I have been waiting for a PACER reply by the court as to whether the joint motion by the parties, asking for a ruling on claim 5 of the '737 patent, will be granted. Perhaps the non-reply to the motion means the court is actively working on this claim construction of "flash memory". I couldn't understand why Judge Krieger only ruled on one key claim, when she clearly implied in court she would rule on both, and if both were dispositive, would not rule on the other six lesser claims. My guess is she erred by not realizing that "flash memory" is also part of the '737. Even the defendants agree the term needs construing based on the joint motion and the fact they haven't filed for summary judgment. I think once she ruled against us on the '774 patent, which also includes the term "flash memory", she thought she'd killed two birds with one stone and didn't need to go any further to end this case. However, as we see below, flash memory is part of both patents.

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

-------

With the Edigital Innovations Group website still not active, I sure hope Nunnally hasn't left for greener pastures after the unfavorable Markman. Nothing new on PACER.

Hope you're recovering well richard.