sman .. Thing is, IMO, there was a claims construction ruling thatseemingly disfavored e.Digital. It did not preclude e.Digital from moving foward to the next stage of suing a defendant...trial with jury.

All that ruling did, for the sake of what the judge rendered, was make e.Digital assess the outcome of a trial, as to how those sitting on a jury might come to understand issues based on what the judge proposed. With that, e.Digital settled up with the defendants in order to have the patent reassessed.

However, before e.Digial had the chance to do as it needed, one of the defendants induced a re-exam....setting some form of technicality in doing so.

The recent defendants then induced the motion for CE regarding "Sole memory" issue subsequent the re-exam ...and the court ruled on the CE from, what I see, a technicality stand point, as the judge made it known his considerations of how the re-exam was not about the "Sole Memory" issue. The judge hinged his ruling considering that the re-exam was specifically about the electrical control issues only and disregarded the Sole Memory issue rectified.

The other claims of the patent are not at issue here ....the claims and claims construction issues were about the "Sole Memory" meaning...

As far as I can understand ...e.Digital did not sign off on rights or precluded itself from reinforcing the "Sole Memory" issue through a re-exam when settling up with Colorado defendants....and they made public statements to that effect....paraphrase: "we are going to rectify the ambiguities".

They might not have been able to revisit the Colorado defendants, and they did not, they moved on. Where, IMO, recent defendants are hiding behind a technicality...and not the type issues suggested in the dissertation you post.

doni