"The amended complaint by Micron was dropped"

SP...This is what the amended defense was all about....

"seek at this very late date leave to amend their answers and counterclaims to add an inequitable conduct defense and related counterclaim(s)."

Handals considerations as the defendant would not hand over any information regarding it...

"This is important to note because it is reflective of the fact that Defendants are trying to sandbag Plaintiff with their so-called newly discovered defense. Their intent seems to be to run the clock out so that e.Digital will be denied the chance to seek any discovery as to the claim of inequitable conduct. It is further important to note that e.Digital will not have the ability to consult, retain, or identify an expert witness and/or to provide an expert report concerning Defendants’ inequitable conduct defense.

The time for e.Digital to identify an expert witness as to such matters has passed as noted above and there is no time to obtain an expert as to Defendants’ newly alleged inequitable conduct defense. This again is extremely unfair and prejudicial, as it appears based on Defendants’ very vague expert disclosure that they intend to present expert witness testimony as to the alleged new defense. (See, Exhibit J).

The issue as to whether the alleged defense applies is not as simple as the Defendants suggest. The Defendants appear to be claiming that the Flashback device allegedly embodies the flash memory file system disclosed in the ‘108 patent, that it practices all the steps of claim 1 of the ‘108, and that the device doing so was sold more than a year prior to the patent application being filed. (See, Dkt #64-1, Motion, Page 1, Lines 11-15). They also appear to be asserting that the Flashback device technology was material to the ‘108 patent, should have been disclosed to the USPTO, and that the inventors intentionally withheld such information from the USPTO.

Not only does e.Digital dispute such claims, such issues are, in many ways extremely technical issues particularly with respect to the “materiality” prong and whether the Flashback device should have been disclosed to the USPTO. e.Digital is entitled to and requires discovery into whatever technical analysis the Defendants have conducted into such matters as well as their basis for making such assertions.

Indeed, the Defendants are basing such assertions on, it appears, an old Flashback device they purchased from e.Bay to which e.Digital has had no opportunity to ask questions about, inspect, or even have inspected by their own expert. e.Digital is entitled to conduct discovery into such matters so that it can be adequately prepared for trial and to defend itself against any counterclaim or defense based on inequitable conduct. "

They were trying to connect dots.

Anyway, water under the bridge now...and I thank you VERY MUCH FRANK for that very important information.

"IT WENT VERY WELL" indeed!!!! Handals written responce did it.

doni