"AFTER LEAVING THERE AND THEN REPORTING HERE I FELT MICRON HAD "TACITLY" ADMITTED IT WAS INFRINGING JUST THE WAY THE EVENTS IN THE COURTROOM WENT AND THE ATTITUDE HE SHOWED WHEN HE STATED MICRON'S DEFENSE WOULD PRIMARILY BE ON "INTENT", LEAVING OUT ANY MENTION OF DENYING ANY INFRINGEMENT WHATSOEVER."

Frank.. Microns amended answer (to out pace the claims const. ruling) , if approved, was going to change its defense (nullifying the claims ruling).. as a consideration, that the Norris Co. was not forthright with the PTO in some fashion.....based on somewhat sketchy testimony gathered from Daberko.

Thing is, 108 does reference prior art 774. Where, 108 IMO, would not have to site the FlashBack device, as 774 and FlashBack have a relationship.

IMO, whatever Daberko may have stated would not matter, as there is a published history of events from one patent to the next.

Part of Micron amending its defense, e.Digital would be able to amend its claims of infringement adding yet eMMC to the list, and set up to defend this new defence. IMO, Handal is following a different path when it comes to recovering Micron's eMMC....However, Handal could end it here directly against Micron for full libility(IMO, that's why he laughed with you)....this is one reason I say Micron's new defence could be costly if unfounded.

IMO, the whole issue of amending defense was a thin consideration....where It appears all Micron was after was leverage in settlement....I do not think it amounted to much leverage.

The whole Micron scenario weakens the other defendants...with that, we'll watch the Microsemi IPR issue and see where it goes.

Micron was cornered with the claims construction ruling and did what any animal would do.....the new defendants have the same challange.

doni