"i'm probably missing something here"

emit, there are things taking place on both fronts that are deliberate...e.g....Colorado defendant, after settling with e.Digital, initiating the control circuitry issue first....before the sole memory issue could be resolved by e.Digital...was it a deliberate ? Seems to me it could have been….why would that defendant care, it settled?

Are the ordered issues of the re-exam.... 1. Control circuitry issue rectified and 2. Subsequent Sole memory issue rectified a reason to consider that one supersedes the other in legal value?

As I see things, that is where we stand in appealing the SC judge. Splitting hairs over, what seems to be, some form of ordered legal technicality.

With that, in the back of my mind (forever) the judge shuffle to select just the right one prior to a predicted motion (or might that motion for CE already have been on the table?) by defendants, inducing a CE ruling which resulted in blocking re-exam issues.

FWIW

doni