"The Company's law firm opposed the motion on a number of grounds. If successful, the Company's appeal will require the District Court to take a fresh look at the meaning of those claim terms and allow e.Digital to argue a different meaning of certain claim terms in light of, among other things, proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that took place after the conclusion of the Colorado case. A reversal of Judge Sabraw's collateral estoppel ruling could also have a substantial impact on unresolved cases by potentially requiring the Court to hold a new claim construction hearing on the disputed terms of the '774 patent and the '108 patent."

Handal's written appeal will be based on the reasons he outlined in our trial court motion to deny Collateral Estoppel. The appeals court will answer (if they take our appeal) and outine one or more reasons for finding for or against us. Even if we get a favorable ruling on CE, this isn't a clear path to victory.

So my recap is this: there are biases working against us. 1) Appeal courts don't like to overturn trial courts, and 2) they don't like the trial courts to have to relitigate findings made in other Federal Courts (as in the CO Fed. Dst. Ct.).

Since Tony Handal knew all this going in, he must feel like he has a strong case, or he wouldn't have taken it in the first place.

ORY