emit....for instance....

The Colorado cases had 774 and 737 asserted.

For the defendants that settled 774 PRIORto the claims construction ruling.... they settled 774 and 737 monetary issues...and were given licenses for those issues, and IMO, were offered other portfolio licensing not asserted...which they may or may not have taken.

All the opposing parties considered in settlement, were the proposed claim construction issues, where each party weighed their consideration of how a ruling might go, based on the issues of claims 1 and 19 being interpretable by one of ordinary skill in the art.

Can e.Digital now sue a defendant in this group if it did not license 108?

The answer is no, because the defendants settled 774 issues based on any flash memory type utilized needing RAM, or not needing RAM....where 108 would then be considered the same.

''infrienge one infrienge all.'' now works for those defendants....where they mutually came to terms.

-------------------------------------------------------

For the Colorado defendants that settled 774 POST claims construction ruling, they settled based on themeritsof the ruling.... Claims 1 and 19 were treated the same.... and were both limited to the use of one memory type.... that did not require the use of RAM. As, 774 did not prescribe the use of RAM.... it was to be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art….and the CO court did not see it that way.

Licensing was not given to these defendants...can e.Digital now prosecute the status 108 in front of these defendants where RAM is prescribed in the patent?

-----------------------------------------------------

Now just consider the issue of RAM not noted (774) and noted (108) and you might see that there is an adverse consideration no matter what path you go.... that can be detrimental to what 774 and 108 full intend.

Trying to bring the use of different memory types together through 774 independent claims 1 and 19...can be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.

Trying to bring the use of different memory types together through 108 independent claims 2(3) and 5(6)...can be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.... however, RAM is noted.

The judge weighing the current claims construction of 108, is not identifying with the fact that RAM is present (though that is great in one respect)...it's reading the independent claims and is coming to a conclusion that they read indifferent and can be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.

FWIW

doni