"There is no revisiting prior settlements -"

Settlements, post CO claims construction and CE ruling, settled 774 issueson themeritsof the CO ruling. How 108 ties into these settlements (eg…licensing) of certain defendant’s post 774, I have no idea. I've read of no licensing post CO/CE rulings.

Apple did not have 108 asserted against it.... 108 is a separate issue from 774. Did EDIG license 108 to Apple in setteling 774 issues…I don’t think so. With that, there’s one other issue regarding Apple…and that is the plug assembly to a flash SSD, it’s considered to be a removable flash drive. There’s a reason that Handal got that issue established. This issue arose, because Apple initially hard fixed the SSD’s into products…and then changed to a plug assembly. That difference in configuration gave Handal what he wanted.

This story is not over…Handal did not hand 108 over to Apple just to be nice…and 774 settled on the merits of the CO ruling …just as Apple identified with the CO ruling and insisted on having.

As for Samsung...108 and 445 where settledseperatlyand dismissed..."from that particular case"

IMO, in reading the Samsung settlement and cross licensing issues…they did not get the same rights that I read of Casio and Olympus getting. Of the TEXAS 7 cases, not all defendants got full rights, not as emphasized for Casio and Olympus.

doni