"So was Apple settled 'Without-Preduice' so we can go back and get them on the duo-mic aspect..."

Apple settled 774, 737, 170 only...108 was not asserted against Apple. Keep in mind 108 was dropped from the Samsung case as well.

No-one has had the full test of 108 yet. And for those that are now settling 108 issues.. claim 2 carrying the "sole memory" issues were not asserted.

If I remember, only 2 companies out of the first bunch had 108 asserted...most all were prosecuted for a combinaion of 774 / 737/ 170....Huawei had 108 asserted against it and on a dispositive final ruling... e.Digital vs Huawei 774 / 737/ 170 / 108.. ....the appeal was launched.

737 remained hung up on Sandisk 774 / 737 and was included in the appeal bunch by the judge. ?? I wonder what happens with this 737 issue now as 774 settled prior to appeal?

One thing for certain, if 108 claim 2 is asserted against anyone ...the construction around the sole memory issue will be entirely different. Defendants will not be trying to enter issues of non RAM. However, has always been plain to see, the sole memory issue within 108 will never come under claims construction scrutiny.

"Because the asserted patents are not related, the '108 patent requires a new claim construction inquiry and the court therefore erred in applying collateral estoppel to the '108 patent.

"To be clear, our decision that collateral estoppel cannot apply to the construction of a claim in one patent based on a previous claim construction of an unrelated patent is not an invitation to assume the opposite is always justified. That is, a court cannot impose collateral estoppel to bar a claim construction dispute solely because the patents are related. Each case requires a determination that each of the requirements for collateral estoppel are met, including that the issue previously decided is identical to the one sought to be litigated. A continuation­in-part, for instance, may disclose new matter that could materially impact the interpretation of a claim, and therefore require a new claim construction inquiry."

Thing is, if you think about it, error or not by the SC judge, the language now presented regarding 108 is definitive, 108 and 774 are separate issues...no question about it, suggested/raised by Defendant-Appellees.

This should go the same in separating 108 from 445…as separate issues.

Anyway, appeal is over with a bit more understanding of the e.Digital story..

doni