Re: PACER (digEcor)
in response to
by
posted on
May 09, 2008 06:40PM
Thanks SILVER
looking at document 180 and subpoena of digecor by EDIG it appears they are going to be our next infringer
e.Digital issued its subpoenas to digEcor’s suppliers in support of its second, third and fourth counterclaims. These claims allege that e.Digital transmitted confidential information to digEcor and its suppliers (namely, DeCuir, Inc. and Wolf Electronix) while the parties were considering working together to design the next-generation digEplayer, and that digEcor and its suppliers employed some or all of this information in developing and building their digEplayer XT.1
Moreover, as noted in the same interrogatory response, digEcor worked closely with its suppliers to develop the digEplayer XT, so it follows that any of the voluminous e.Digital information possessed by digEcor could easily have been shared with Wolf Electronix, DeCuir, inc./Triad engineering,or VPI engineering.
A final basis is e.Digital’s statement in its interrogatory response that Brent Wood had made representations in the past that digEcor was well-practiced at, and willing to reverse engineer technology, and could easily have requested that its suppliers reverse engineer e.Digital’s proprietary technology for use within the XT.
digEcor offers no evidence or argument positing that it and its suppliers did not receive the information they are alleged to have received. Given that e.Digital’s allegations remain unchallenged, they provide sufficient basis on which discovery may conducted thereon .
e.Digital Has Alleged Sufficient Basis to Support its Allegations That its Confidential Information Was Included in digEcor’s digEplayer XT Device
First, it is e.Digital’s position that digEcor has incorporated e.Digital’s proprietary technology into the digEplayer XT. See Argument §§ I.A & B, supra. Thus, e.Digital is entitled to know whether digEcor ever represented to a customer that it owns all of the intellectual property in the digEplayer XT, or whether it ever admitted to any of its customers that some of the technology contained therein was adapted from the digEplayer 5500, or from e.Digital’s confidential information.Secondly, it has long been e.Digital’s position that digEcor no longer possesses a license to market even that technology contained within the digEplayer 5500. digEcor has not renewed its license to sell such technology, and pays no royalties on its sales of the e.Digital-designed device. Thus, even as to the digEplayer 5500 customers, e.Digital is entitled to investigate the claims digEcor has made regarding its entitlement to market e.Digital’s technology.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, e.Digital’s subpoenas seek discoverable information, and digEcor’s Motion to Quash or Modify such subpoenas should be denied.