RE: judges comments and considerations

"Background

This is a patent infringement action brought by Plaintiff against Defendant for

infringing Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 (“the ’108 Patent”). (Doc. No. 13,

FAC, ¶ 1.) Claim 1 teaches a method of memory management for a non-volatile

memory storage medium, such as flash memory. (See Doc. No. 1, FAC, ¶ 10; see also"

- 1 -"

Though the judge did not reflect directly on the highlighted words above....the ruling(s) are built around it..

"Finally, Plaintiff has also 1 pleaded that the accused products’“The primary and substantial purpose . . . is to write to and store data in electronic format in nonvolatile flash memory,” fairly implying that they have no substantial non-infringing uses."

In other words...Intels physical product ..have no substantial non-infringing uses...however, they are implementing patented methods "to write to and store data in electronic format in nonvolatile" ...entity through patented methods, and they are providing and informing others how to do it.

"such as" is an important consideration to included in the case background ...As flash memory is not the only memory that the patented methods can be utilized for. e.Digitals methods have nothing to do with the physical proprieties of the memory other than being configured to manipulate them.

The judge has considered the separation of what e.Digital does, as presented by Handal, and what the defendant product is and does.

Thanks sman...very good....Intel now has to defend that seperation of which the court now strongly considers to be true.

doni