sman....the court agreed with e.Digital as to the broadest interpretation...with the consideration of the specifications. That broadest consideration was considered over the similar phrase as being pursued in the IPR.

Defendant is rehashing the same thing that took place in the civil court...

The only difference this time, they are paying someone for an opinion to invalidate on the same limitation compairson....which means they are not going against the courts ruling....though its argued over the same circumstances....lol

"177. For the reasons set forth in detail above, it is therefore my opinion that, to the extent that “a logical link between the previous logical data segment and the new data segment” is construed to be broader than “a pointer written to the previous logical data segment that points to the physical location of the new data segment,” Krueger discloses all limitations of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent, and that Claim 1 is therefore invalid."

doni