"e.Digital contends it should not be precluded from advocating a different construction of the term construed in Pentax because this Court should consider the reexamination history which was not available to the Pentax court and is material to construing the claim limitation at issue. e.Digital argues the reexamination history is material because it is replete with references to the presence of RAM(2), and is therefore inconsistent with the claim construction in Pentax. The Court disagrees."

(1) e.Digital alleges that various Defendants infringe claims 33 and 34 of the ‘774 patent. However, on June 26, 2013, e.Digital served its disclosure of asserted claims and preliminary infringement contentions pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3.1 and the May 30, 2013 Order After Case Management Conference, which directed e.Digital to limit its asserted claims to no more than five per patent. e.Digital included claim 33(former claim 1) for the ‘774 patent, but not claim 34(former claim 19). (Opp’n at 12 n.1.) Accordingly, only claim 33 is at issue at this time. e.Digital concedes, however, that the "differences between canceled claim 19 and new claim 34 are identical to the differences between claims 1 and 33." (Id.)

For the term construed in Pentax:

There are two issues in the origional patented phrase that needed to be construed.

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”

As I stated prior....e.Digitals claims construction considered issues for both claim 1 and 19.

The defendants claims construction considered one issue only...

And the judge ruled on one issue only...and is not fully litigated IMO...

e.Digital was looking to get the digital issue construed.

doni