...here is that if '774/'737 re-exams are "succesful", then we're "back in the game".

From what we've witnessed with EDIG and other companies over the years, we should know that there is a big difference between proving patent validity and being able to effectively monetize it.

DM supposedly did a bunch of DD and decided that '774 was the best patent to monetize. They succeeded in that they achieved numerous settlements and made money for themselves and e.Digital. But they failed to achieve a successful Markman ruling which should have led to higher settlements and/or a favorable outcome at trial. Thus e.Digital has a few million in the bank while our share price remains in the 2-3 cent range. I'm happy for the company but I'd rather be happy for me.

From re-exam documents, we see that they are arguing over power supply/source issues rather than RAM and sole-memory issues. If these are valid and critical claims being infringed, then why didn't DM include them in the first place (again given all of their DD)?

It seems to me that DM/EDIG intends to start over and will try to monetize the same ('774/'737) patents because apparently they overlooked some key issues the first time around? We have no choice but to take Fred's word that the re-exam is critical, but I have difficulty seeing much value for shareholders in this even if they "win".

- Sinkman