They shud have connected the dots before March 2015......Almost word for word from the Honorable Judge Huff.....

EDig won just about EVERYTHING. Micron has to produce all the relavant documents requested by EDig "BEFORE" the next court session, I believe it's May 11...Not sure about that and Jude Huff also denied Micron their "amended" request so everything is going forward as was originally planned.

Mr. Handal stood before the judge and as much called the Micron lawyers inethical....(not quite) for not supplying EDig the supeoned paper work. Micron replied "get this" We gave EDig all the necessary documentations "WE FELT WAS NECESSARY" to proceed with this case......That was their defense.....Even Judge Huff huffed on that one and Mr. Handal jumped all over it informing the judge she could not make a judicial decision based on what Micron "decided" was relavant.....Judge Huff agreed and told Micron "TO PRODUCE" and if not done EDig was to come back to court.....

All in all the Discovery process was a no brainer....Mr. Handal provided documantation of how Micron "DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING WITH INTEL, SAN DISK AND A COUPLE OF OTHER COMPANIES IN LAW SUITS"... The Judge asked Micron about that and Micron had no and gave no answer...

AS far as the amended complaint, the second issure, Mr. Handal showed with documentation that Micron was well aware of the entire scope of the proceedings no later than September, 2014 and could have answered anytime. The judge asked them why they did not and Micron just "bloviated" all over the place for about 15 minutes....Had to check with their facilities in Italy, in Asia...etc...and could not get the "SOURCE" documention from Minnisotta....etc....Judge Huff did not buy that one either.

One legality I did not quite understand was when Judge Huff asked Micron some technical questions about the amended complaint request. Micron again replied "we do not know the anwer to those questions your honor because EDig has not supplied us with the information. The judge then asked Micron (exact words a little more polite than I am using here) Just how is hell were you able to file this "amended complaint if you do not know those answers??? You realize you become a "plaintive" in this matter when you file an amended complaint (EDig side, now Micron's side, both complaints) so how could you do that if you do not know what you are filing for???? It was actually quite embarrasing for Micron.

In any case the Judge ruled against Micron and denied it's request for the amended complaint. In fact no delay was granted to either side, EDig's stay or Micron's stay. However Micron threw in a brand new (through it up against the wall to see what sticks) complaint of "INTENT"

This deals with "prior art" and was never part of any of these proceedings until this past week. It seems Micron deposed Mr. Deberco, the inventor of EDigs flash patents and one of the questions dealt with just how did you arrive at what you invented?

Mr Deberco has not worked for EDig for many years and this patent was obtained in 1995 and he could not remember the exact details of what transpired then and must have said something (not reported in the court room) of what the intent was in creating the technology that led Micron to believe that it harbored back to "prior art" and therefore 108 was not a valid patent.

Therefore "INTENT" BECAME THE BIGGIE IN THIS HEARING.

However Mr. Handal literally jumped out of his seat and informed the Judge that he was at Mr. Deberco's deposition and that 4, I REPEAT, 4 different devices (technology, whatever) was brought up at that deposition and Micron only concentrated on one while ingnoring the other 3 which were completely different patented products.

My personal thoughts, and only that, was that Deberco did not remember much about what occured in 1995 but might have said something about one of the inventions and prior art in the same sentence therefore giving Micron it's leg to deny infringement on. I do not feel and was borne out by Mr. Handal and Judge Huff that there was any REAL substance to this stance. When Judge Huff queried Micron about this he gave no answer except to say we are going to use "INTENT AS THE BASIS OF OUR DEFENSE.

Judge Huff asked him if that path, if proved, would invalidate Section 1 of patent 108 thereby invalidating the entire patent. Micron said "YES"

Judge Huff was not in accord with that answer. I (again my opinion) do not believe she is going to allow the deposed testimony of Mr. Deberco, who admitted to by both sides, could not remember all the details of what transpired 20 years ago, and admitted to by both sides was talking about 4 different technologies to COMPLETELY INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE 108 PATENT.

I was the only one in the courtroom and really tried hard to understand the legalize in front of me....Some I got, some I just said "Huh"

I had a short conversation with Mr. Handal in the hallway and asked him what his thoughts were....He replied "IT WENT VERY WELL"

There were quite a few other topics brought up, some of which I understood, some I forgot.....One of the things I forget, and hope someone out there can help me on was relating to the defense and I believe prior art. Micron kept saying "inequity", or "inequality" (or something like that)they brought up and it is a legal term and it relates to (I think) prior art. I hope someone is familiar with Microns pleadings and what it is they are trying to accomplish..

Other than that it was EDig's day....EDig got it's Discovery requests and if not produced in time to study that discovery by May 11 the Judge made it clear Micron would hear from her.

The amended complaint by Micron was dropped and all the relavant dates set were held in place....no stays....no nutting..

Since I have obviously forgotten much please "blurb" me here with a question and perhaps my mind will be jogged enough to give an answer, if there is one to give...