Subject: Trustee for e.Digital Corporation, a Delaware corporation: (db) casbke 3:17-bk-04075.

From: Me

Date: 8/2/17 8:29 am

To: "admin@crb7trustee.com" <admin@crb7trustee.com>

 Hello and good day Mr. Christopher Barclay,

I am a long term shareholder of e.Digital Corporation and found you are the appointed trustee for the bankruptcy filing of company e.Digital Corporation, a Delaware corporation: (db) casbke 3:17-bk-04075. ch7  07/06/2017. 

I am contacting you by email because as a shareholder of e.Digital Corporation I find this chapter 7 bankruptcy filing to be illegal and fraudulent.  The reasons I suspect fraud was committed are as follows:

1. Company has no significant debt.

2. A very substantial loss carry forward.

3.  Very optimistic forward looking comments in latest Press Releases pointing to the soon to be released annual report. 

5. The very much unantisipated filing this chapter7  just in front of the never filed annual report.

6. Positive incoming results from patent applications with the USPTO.

7 announcing new board members with their positive considerations just in front of this chapter 7.

8. Seemingly positive settlements with patent litigation.

Additionally, due to this chapter 7 bankruptcy filing I ask you to research the settlement for the case between Google v. e.DIGITAL settlement and license agreement from June 2016.  As a shareholder I would like to know the details of this settlement and license agreement.

The e.Digital versus Google case had a civil action stayed pending the outcome of an IPR challenge petitioned by Google. 

At some point during this IPR action it was decided, seemingly by both parties, not to pursue any real definition of the patent(s) validity per the three-judge panel of the PTAB. 

With that decision by e.Digital and its representation shareholders feel they were cheated by not hearing a decision from the PTAB, where the parties settled the civil action with a licensing agreement and then abruptly closing the PTAB case.

 It is the shareholders' consideration that the patent's were salvaged in front of this IPR process not getting a ruling on validity where the patents now remain intact to be carried forward. 

As followers of these patents we feel there is a value that is not being wholly considered. If we got ruling from the PTAB ,bad or good we would have been less agitated about the whole bankruptcy issue.

And finally, I find very strange and suspicious that Mary Fales Patent Attorney withdrew right before the Chapter 7 filling. This should be investigated, because one of the reason she quit was "A client insists upon taking action that the practitioner considers Repugnant or with which the practitioner has a fundamental disagreement".

Thanking you in advance for your consideration.

Best regards,  Me