"This perception is what will keep me holding on if we lose appeal,"

No problem with that, if there is enough substance in the new patents to support claims.

It's like 774 and 108...initial substance not enough in 774 to support claims...with that, 108 is brought foward in an attempt to add the support.

The only thing at stake in the appeal, other than the 108 problem....is a hoped for ruling allowing 774 to be re-litigated.

IMO, 774 will never be re-litigated again, however, with the amendments made to it with the full graces of the USPTO...if it were to be re-litigate again, it would come out much different than previous, where, IMVHO that hedge is important in front of other patents.

Thing is, what happens to 108, will a dis-positive ruling also keep 108 from being re-litigated once the ruling is final? They are pushing 108 at present, what happens if what I consider comes to fruition?

emit, you have to understand how important the I/O method is and that is what 108 initiates…will this I/O be important to the NUNCHI patents? IMO, very much so…Is it important to exemplify it in front of the NUNCHI patents…I have no idea.

As for 737 /GOPRO……case on hold dependent on the appeal…my point was …why can’t 737 simply carry on with litigation against GOPRO? What happens to 737 if the appeal is dis-positive to e.Digital…that can not be taking place now as a stand alone issue ?

Other than 737 being a continuation in part of 774, what connection to the appeal ties 737 up like that?

doni