IMO, we have to look at it as a licensing effort....and not litigation. Though its taking the threat of litigation to force the licensing.

Or is the current effort not licensing anything?

regardless of licensing...Is getting the table set with 737....and the claims construction considered for it...if there is to be any(?) and not to have 33 / 34 sitting next to it...a blessing?

Or is it, that it would not matter if 33 and 34 were sitting next to it and not remove from litigation without prejudice?

IMO, there would be some form of gamble if 33 and 34 did sit next to it, though 33 was the only claim to consider in these cases , some how, I feel the defendants or the judge having a disagreement about that.

If there is considered claims construction similar to the past , the possibilities might be ...

What is flash memory?

If all the pieces were in play...as a result of a positive CE ruling regarding e.Digital...

1...A. “flash memory” (Claims 2 and 33[34 not to be considered] 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 ???...

With just 737 ....as it seems to have turned out...

What is flash memory?

2...A. “flash memory” (Claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent)...and no other claims to consider....

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory"

Defendants’ Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory that is....???"

==========

Of the two possibilities, which looks the most risky to e.Digital ?.....IMO...1

Of the two possibilities, which looks the most risky to the defendants ?..IMO...2

Is this yet another serendipitous issue, or is Handal and company that smart?...lol

The twists and turns are just amazing.

doni