e.DIGITAL refused first round of settlement . I believe we will continue with forceful discovery attempt till trial date. JMO

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

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation

One Market Plaza

Spear Tower, Suite 3300

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 947-2000

Facsimile: (415) 947-2099

Attorneys for Defendant,

DROPCAM, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

e.Digital Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

Dropcam, Inc.,

Defendant.

Case Number: C-14-04922 JST

FURTHER JOINT CASE

MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENTAND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. C-14-04922 JST

-2-

Pursuant to the Court’s Order of December 2, 2015 (Dkt. No. 79), e.Digital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”) and Dropcam, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Dropcam”) (collectively, the“Parties”) jointly submit this Further Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order.

The Parties herein supplement and update the information provided in their initial Joint Case Management Statement (Dkt. No. 41) pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and Civil Local Rules 16-9 and 16-10.

I. Jurisdiction & Service

The parties have no modifications to the positions taken in their initial Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. No. 41.

II. Facts

The parties have no modifications to the positions taken in their initial Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. No. 41.

III. Legal Issues

The parties have no modifications to the positions taken in their initial Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. No. 41.

IV. Motions

In view of the Court’s claim construction order, the Parties each anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment.

V. Amendment of Pleadings

The parties have no modifications to the positions taken in their initial Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. No. 41.

VI. Evidence Preservation

The parties have no modifications to the positions taken in their initial Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. No. 41.

VII. Disclosures

In addition to initial disclosures, the Parties have now exchanged disclosures pursuant to the Patent Local Rules.

VIII. Discovery

The Parties have engaged in written discovery. On August 27, 2015, Dropcam served a first set of requests for production of documents and a first set of interrogatories. e.Digital served objections and responses on or about October 8, 2015. On October 8, 2015, e.Digital served a first set of requests for production of documents and a first set of interrogatories.

Dropcam served objections and responses on or about December 3, 2015. The Parties anticipate that further discovery may include additional written discovery, source code review, and depositions.

e.Digital asserts that its proposed discovery schedule set forth in Section XVII, below, reflects the fact that the parties have exchanged only one set of written discovery so far and the fact that the parties are still negotiating a stipulated protective order for the Court to enter. As of

the date of this filing, despite Dropcam’s Patent L.R. 3-4(a) obligations and initial responses to requests for production, Dropcam has produced relatively little in the way of technical documentation. It is e.Digital’s position that Dropcam’s proposed schedule leaves too little time for the parties to finalize and submit the stipulated protective order, review any subsequent

confidential technical documentation, including source code review, resolve any remaining discovery disputes, conduct depositions, and provide its expert witnesses sufficient time to review said discovery for incorporation into their expert reports. Dropcam proposes that the timing for conclusion of fact discovery and expert disclosures proceed in accordance with the pretrial schedule set forth in Section XVII, below.Dropcam believes a fact discovery close of March 7, 2016 (over three months after the Court’s claim construction order) provides more than ample time to complete discovery in this case and maintains that there is no good cause for fact

discovery to proceed for an additional five months after the ruling on claim construction as e.Digital proposes, below. Discovery opened over a year ago, and each side has had ample opportunity to propound and respond to written requests for discovery, notice and take depositions, and request any additional discovery as appropriate.

At this time, the Parties do not propose any modifications of the discovery provisions and limitations agreed upon in Sections VIII.B.2-VIII.B.5 and VIII.C of the January 27, 2015 Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. No. 41.

The Parties are currently working to reach agreement on a Stipulated Protective Order governing the disclosure of certain confidential and proprietary business and financialinformation for adoption by the Court.

IX. Class Actions

The parties have no modifications to the positions taken in their initial Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. No. 41.

X. Related Cases

On or about January 12, 2015, e.Digital filed a case in the Southern District of California against an unrelated defendant asserting five of the six patents asserted in this case. The case is entitled e.Digital Corporation v. ArcSoft,Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00056, and is assigned to the Honorable Roger T. Benitez. On or about February 13, 2015, e.Digital filed a case in the Northern District of California against an unrelated defendant asserting five of the six patents asserted in this case. The case is entitled e.Digital Corporation v. ShenZhen Gospell Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd.,

Case Number 4:15-cv-00691. On March 27, 2015, that case was found related to the instant case and reassigned to the Honorable Jon S. Tigar. Dkt. No. 45.

On or about June 24, 2015, Dropcam filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of all asserted claims of the six asserted patents, Case Nos. IPR2015-01470-IPR2015-01475. On December 21, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued decisions instituting IPR as to all challenged claims of the ’523, ’524, ’618, and ’619 patents. On December 22, 2015, the PTAB issued decisions instituting IPR as to all challenged claims of the ’522 and ’514 patents.

On or about December 17, 2015, e.Digital filed a case in the Northern District of California against an unrelated defendant asserting three of the six patents asserted in this case. The case is entitled e.Digital Corporation v. iBaby Labs, Inc., Case Number 3:15-cv-05790. On December 18, 2015, that case was reassigned to the Honorable Jon S. Tigar.On or about December 17, 2015, e.Digital filed a case in the Northern District of California against an unrelated defendant asserting three of the six patents asserted in this case.

The case is entitled e.Digital Corporation v. iSmart Alarm, Inc., Case Number 3:15-cv-05793.

On December 17, 2015, that case was assigned to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.

On or about December 17, 2015, e.Digital filed a case in the Northern District of California against an unrelated defendant asserting three of the six patents asserted in this case. The case is entitled e.Digital Corporation v. MivaTek International, Inc., Case Number 3:15-cv- 05795. On December 18, 2015, that case was reassigned to the Honorable Jon S. Tigar.

On or about December 17, 2015, e.Digital filed a case in the Northern District of California against an unrelated defendant asserting three of the six patents asserted in this case.The case is entitled e.Digital Corporation v. MyFox, Inc., Case Number 3:15-cv-05798. On

XI. Relief

The parties have no modifications to the positions taken in their initial Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. No. 41.

XII. Settlement and ADR

On October 17, 2014, an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference was held before the Honorable Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick of the Southern District of California. No settlement was reached during the conference. The parties have subsequently engaged inadditional direct discussions regarding possible settlement of this matter and believe that a resolution remains possible.

The Parties have stipulated to private mediation to be conducted before an agreed upon mediator. See Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting Mediation, Dkt No. 37. The Parties’

proposal for the timing of mediation is set forth in Section XVII, below.