sman...all 5 IPRs got the same condition to modify 2 and 3.

e.Digital did not motion to amend patent(s) by 3-24-16. With that, the petitioner has no reason for "Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend"

And e.Digital has no reason for ..."Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend"

Both are stricken from the due date list.

And this is the gamble......to tie things together without amending.

" However, the common specification of the patents as well as certain claims of other patents in the patent family that are not subject to the pending group of IPRs make clear that a social hierarchy is not limited to a hierarchy of people and may involve a hierarchy of operations.

The common specification of disputed patents provides that a “social hierarchy” can include not only persons, but also the quantity, and type of delivery, of information made available to different persons. For example, the specification describes an “emergency” embodiment, wherein members of the various levels of the social hierarchy receive information through different operations: "

All the patents have the same common specification

BLR that is the arguement we have to contend with.... not claims construction...not yet anyway.

doni