**********************************************************************

2. The Accused Apple Computers Do Not Initiate A Memory

Integrity Test When The Internal Flash Memory Is Inserted

Plaintiff concedes that, in claims 6, 9 and 13 of the ’737 patent, the claimed

memory integrity test is initiated when the user inserts the flash memory into the device.

(Oppn. at 20 (“performing a flash memory medium integrity test … requires no manual

involvement of the user other than inserting the flash memory module into the plug

assembly of the device.”); Ex. 5, ’737 patent.) However, Apple explained in its Motion

that Plaintiff contended in its PICs that the accused computers perform a memory integrity test when the computer is turned on – not when the flash memory is inserted into the device. (Mtn. at 19-20; Ex. 9, ’737 patent claim chart, at 14.)

device. (Id.) But that has nothing to do with the claimed requirement that the device

initiate a memory integrity test when flash memory is inserted into the device. Neither

Plaintiff’s PICs nor its opposition identifies any evidence that the accused laptops meet

this limitation. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s claim charts state the opposite.

Plaintiff has not, and cannot, put forth a cognizable legal theory as to why any of

the accused Apple products infringe any of the asserted ’737 patent claims. Accordingly,

the Court should enter judgment in Apple’s favor regarding the ’737 patent.

http://www.amazon.com/i-FlashDrive-32GB-dual-storage-between/dp/B00AVTDBFQ/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1375645495&sr=8-9&keywords=ipod+flash+drive

Just a theory, but winning on '737 is really important, and it might be worth trying?