e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[Cassandra]

I provided information to you because it appears you have a difficult time understanding the use of concepts in the law.

Please help me see what legal concepts you believe I don't understand by posting links to the posts that caused you to make that assertion.

It's true that I've heard I have never heard of a "de novo court." Since you worked in a criminal one, perhaps you could explain what it is and how it supposedly relates to various rights to an appeal that you discussing in this post: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76510704

I also don't understand the point were you trying to make with your non authoritative quote of Judge Mayer. Perhaps you could explain that too. BTW, I posted a correction to a source link of the quote. If you used a different link, feel free to post it.

The previous Markman ruling was indeed considered dispositive over those defendants and both sides agreed that the claim constructions in the '737 patent did not need ruling if the '774 patent was ruled to exclude RAM. e.Digital dismissed all of the remaining defendants and, according to e.Digital's response to the motion to apply collateral estoppel, the judge approved no settlements following the ruling.

I don't know how Judge Sabraw will rule on the motion to apply collateral estoppel to the previous Markman ruling. Yes, e.Digital amended the '774 patent to overcome the finding of invalidity due to prior art. They tried to reintroduce RAM through a back door in the amendments, but I'm not sure it will work. The claim of flash memory being the sole memory remains. If collateral estoppel is not applied and a new claim construction process is held, I expect that a new construction of key claims would result also result in the exclusion of RAM in '774.

You repeatedly assert that Judge Kreiger's Markman ruling was flawed, inconsistent, self contradictory and used incorrect technical definitions, yet I have never seen you back up these assertions with examples from the ruling and case law that supports whatever you think should have been done.

you appear to quote dictionaries a lot...

I often include quotes and links in my posts so people can independently verify what I have posted. This is not an indication that I lack an understanding of the subject, but an attempt to provide verification. I think your posts would be more helpful if you included links to the sources you quote.