Free
Message: Re: you had me at "two microphones"
12
Nov 20, 2014 01:23PM
4
Nov 20, 2014 04:29PM
2
Nov 20, 2014 06:58PM

"This post confused me seeing Apple mentioned with 108:"

774 and 108 were tied together by the SC judge on his CE ruling.... based on commonality between the patents.

Apple had 774 asserted against it.

When e.Digital got a dis-positive ruling, e.Digital vs Huawei....based on principles of their mutually agreed SPJ(stipulate partial judgment)....e.Digital began the appeal of the CE ruling.

When that happened, Apple motioned the SC court to stay its proceedings and modify its SPJ pending the outcome of the appeal.

The judge granted, while at the same time, modified previously court ordered agreements or SPJ's (mutually agreed contracts between e.Digital and defendants) for the remaining defendants and stayed the remaining cases pending the appeal out come. SPJ's were post CE issues...initiated by e.Digital.

e.Digital objected to the SPJ modifications by the judge...and presented that argument to the appeals court as well. The SC judge reversed orders he had previously sanctioned… breaking contractual agreements between e.Digital and defendants, where e.Digital agreed to partially give up ground in the agreements. The appeals court sided with the SC judge on this matter ....I disagree, contracts are contracts.

All remaining defendants of the 2012 cases are tied to 108 by way of this process, however, not all had 108 asserted against them….eg Apple.

Apple bailed out of the process early on settling with e.Digital. Apple started it and bailed…lol

For those that settled 774 issues prior to appeal outcome, eg Apple, they settled 774 issues based on the CO ruling and the CE ruling. A strange issue is Sandisk...it settled 774 prior...and was most likely negotiating 737 settlement when it hit the fan, SNDK was tossed into the mix pending the appeal out come.

It's this process that you do not understand.

108 now takes, in part, the place of 774. Where, as of the appeal ruling, the 108 can now be re-litigated.... with its sole memory language / RAM issues and is distanced from 774 with a ruling of explanation separating commonality.

doni

5
vic
Nov 21, 2014 10:50AM
2
Nov 21, 2014 06:19PM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply