Replies to post #82175 on e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[LGJ]

Cassandra, I've posted the full section of the Flash-R Enforcement and Licensing Progress taken from the 10K... you only posted a small part that I've highlighted in RED but the whole section tells the complete story. You left out some of the best parts, let's not forget about the successful patent 774 & 737 reexamination. It's the part that matters the most to e.Digital and the Shareholder's. It's the section in BLUE and it's all about the success of the reexamamination. But, I've saved the best for last, it's the part in GREEN, it's all about filing 22 lawsuits and as of June 6, 2013, seven (7) defendants had agreed to license and settlement terms... ;-) GFTG - Go for the Green...lol

Flash-R Enforcement and Licensing Progress
Flash-R Enforcement and Licensing Progress

In March 2007 we engaged the international law firm Duane Morris LLP to handle certain patent enforcement matters on a contingent fee basis. In October 2007 we commenced enforcement action with respect to our patent portfolio and filed a total of 27 complaints against manufacturers. Through September 2012, with the assistance of Duane Morris LLP, we licensed and settled with 19 defendants, realizing gross license fees aggregating approximately $15 million. In September 2012 we terminated the services of Duane Morris LLP and retained Handal & Associates as our intellectual property (IP) counsel for license enforcement of our Flash-R™ patent portfolio.

On June 28, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an Opinion and Order Regarding Claim Construction following a January 28, 2011 Markman hearing (a proceeding under U.S. patent law where both sides present to the Court their arguments on how they believe patent terms should be construed). The Opinion construed claim terms in United States Patent 5,491,774 (the ‘774 patent”) one of the Company’s Flash-R patents, more narrowly than we had proposed. This Markman ruling could negatively affect future licensing prospects with respect to the ‘774 patent.

In September 2012 we announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had completed the reexamination of our U.S. Patent Nos. 5,491,774 (the ‘774) and 5,742,737 (the ‘737). While we were required to supplement one claim of the ‘737 patent and modify certain claims of the ‘774 patent, we believe the reexam process reaffirmed important patent claims as we continue our Flash-R™ patent portfolio monetization activities.

During fiscal 2013 we commenced enforcement action with respect to our Flash-R patent portfolio by filing complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, asserting that products made and sold by the defendant companies infringe our U.S. patents. We have commenced enforcement by filing 22 lawsuits, each one concerning alleged acts of infringement by manufacturers and their related distributors. As of June 6, 2013, seven defendants had agreed to license and settlement terms during the course of related litigation.

Although most fees, costs and expenses of the litigation are covered under our partial contingent fee arrangement with Handal and Associates, we incur support and related expenses for this litigation. In addition to support from our management team, we currently have one outside consultant assigned to assist, monitor and support Handal and Associates in our Flash-R litigation and licensing activities.