"This is just a pure guess but, can we offer to license the whole portfolio excluding 774 and then when the defendants say, wait a minute we want/need the entire portfolio, our retort can be based on the ruling in CO and the collateral estoppel that you are standing on what 774 does is not a necessity in the package?"

IMO, future 774 issues come down to how they settle, or do not settle prior to ANY current court judgements.

They are being partially released form infringement depending on what happens in the current court.

With that, IMO, 774 will be part of any licensing if settlements are reached....the FlashR patent protifilo....if that is still an objective.

e.Digital is not telling us through PRs as they had in the past...with that....questions stand in that regard.

"They would then have to agree that our construction of 774 was correct all along, that it is necessary as the re exam clarifies and it is back in the mix. Could this be what Handal is referring to as "at the proper time"?

Settlements are off the record....they know the score and the claims issues.

The re-exam is simply getting the RAM issue of 774 from a state of implicit consideration (normally RAM is there with out explanation) to an explicit consideration (RAM is there).

The defendants know all this, they have their own agenda and don't care how they get to their objective, half ruled court considerations.... right or wrong....etc.

Anyway...

doni