Replies to post #82176 on e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[heybrad]

I hope you re not implying that the colored red section section invalidated the markman ruling blue section.

I read the entire patent original, the entire mew patent and the markman too. I believe there is a great deal lmisunderstading over these.

I have asked to those making comments like the reexam stomped on the markman and other less forceful comments but none the less under the fasle impression the reexam stomped on the markman ruling to please provide the proof of this. Specifically what was changed or added or dropped that addressed any issue reversing or making the markman ruling mot important anymore.

The avoiding this question is speaking very loudly about the lack of understanindg and yet we see comments all over the place making these claims.

[Cassandra]

LGJ: I was quoting from the "Risks Related to our Patent Licensing and Enforcement Strategy," not the "Progress" section you quoted from.

My point is the disclosure of a serious new risk factor that was never disclosed before. I also explained why I believe it has been added to the risk factors.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89600093

Have you reviewed Newegg's motion for attorney fees in the Creative case (Dkt #43)? If so, what are your thoughts? They are requesting over $30K for all of their attorney fees or at minimum $18K incurred subsequent to 4/26/13.

Newegg wasn't sued by "mistake" and attorney fees aren't awarded for a simple error. It has to be deemed an "exceptional case" that involves misconduct, which is a very serious matter.

I look forward to e.Digital's response to the motion which is due by July 12.

FWIW, I think Newegg has a good case and look forward to the outcome.