"and will refuse to settle and let a jury decide which would be worth more money if the court finds in our favor."

e.Digitals considered mission was to be agnostic to the industry. e.Digital has patented methods that the industry , as a whole, need as the future of computing putters along.

IMO, they are still on that mission and little by little they are achieving their initial objective.

There's a posturing by defendants, some being agreeable to terms e.g RIM of the initial group of defendants, WD (and others) of the latest group of defendants.

Some not being so agreeable e.g Intel (and others) of the latest group of defendants, where e.Digital is reinforcing its complaint, meaning moving to the next level of litigation.

Everything is connected, 108 is connected to the 774 appeal physically (which, IMO, should not be directly involved) and technically.

This defending phrase of the recent Intel (and others) pacer doc is connected to the 774 appeal....."making, using, offering for sale, selling in the United States and/or importing into the United States without authority, the accused products identified above. Claim 1 of the ’108 patent teaches a method of memory management for a non-volatile storage medium. The method comprises several steps, which generally involves, without limitation, writing electronic data segments from volatile, temporary memory to a non-volatile, long-term storage medium by linking data segments according to a number of specified steps."

That highlighted process is the subject of the CO Markman ruling, of which, that judge says there is NO volatile (RAM) technical detial involved in the process for the 774 patent.

There's a challenge to be determined between the 774 device patent implementing numerous technical details, and the 108 patent of numerous technical details that are implemented within the 774 device patent.

It's a gamble at this point on how far defendants want to wait to see how this appeal differentiates 774 and 108 and if they can use the results of the appeal to form claims construction around the 108's volatile (RAM) phrase....being claim term item (b) of claim 1.

There's a lot to read of the PACER actions, but it all boils down to the same thing.....the appeal and will e.Digital be able to re-litigate the 774 patent as a result of the appeal.

If e.Digital is allowed to re-litigate 774....the price is going up substantially to settle 108, as Defendants won't have a leg to stand on.

Without a doubt in my mind they are all following the appeal of 774....and they know the talking points to be considered.

doni