The following are the amended claims by digEcor [paraphrased by me] against EDIG and the current status of each claim. All claims are found in Document 84. If any errors, PLEASE set me straight. Thanks!

-------------

First Claim for Relief (Breaches of Contract) - these items are from page 11:

1. EDIG failed to deliver 1,250 digEplayers and batteries on the date due, as well as failing to deliver the follow-on order of 750 players.

2. EDIG failed to honor the exclusive license that it granted to digEcor.

3. EDIG failed to honor the warranty it gave for the digEplayer product.

4. EDIG refused to honor the terms of the DRM agreement to supply the DRM technology for a flat fee of $25,000 and other valuable consideration, such as the approval of DRM technology by the Motion Picture Studios by the efforts of digEcor.

5. EDIG wrongfully repudiated digEcor’s exclusive rights to use of property which digEcor has right of use.

STATUS: (Item 1) The only thing ruled on here was that EDIG owes digEcor a refund for 1,250 batteries that digEcor paid for (see Doc 324, page 23, para 3) . The Court refused to rule on the digEplayer issue so that will be decided at trial. (Item 2) Ruled in favor of EDIG as seen in Doc 65. (Item 3) Has not been ruled on and will be decided at trial. (Item 4 and 5) Ruled in favor of EDIG as seen in Doc 65.

-------------

Second Claim for Relief (Alternative Claim for Unjust Enrichment) from page 12:

1. EDIG was unjustly enriched by $793,750 by digEcor for product that EDIG has never delivered to digEcor.

STATUS: The Court dismissed digEcor’s original claim of unjust enrichment as seen in Doc 65, page 8, para 3. This is an alternative claim and the Court has not ruled on it so it will be decided on at trial.

-------------

Third Claim for Relief (Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) from page 13:

1. EDIG breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and digEcor has been damaged.

STATUS: Third claim dismissed by the Court on 23 Apr 09 (Doc 342). digEcor was asking for a judgment for damages of at least $790,750 plus the damage of loss of business and consequential damages but got a big fat ZERO.

-------------

Fourth Claim for Relief (Fraud) from page 14:

1. EDIG made representations (as seen in above claims) concerning material facts that were false.

2. EDIG made the representations directly to digEcor knowing they were false.

3. EDIG made these representations to induce digEcor to act upon them by making payments to EDIG.

4. EDIG failed to disclose material facts to digEcor that it knew, or should have known, would negatively affect digEcor’s decision to make payments to EDIG.

STATUS: These items have not had summary judgment by the Court and will be ruled on at trial.

--------------

Fifth Claim for Relief (Negligent Misrepresentation) from page 14:

1. If the representations above were not fraudulently made, digEcor alleges that EDIG made those representations with negligent disregard for their truth or falsity.

2. EDIG had a monetary interest in making these misrepresentations.

3. EDIG was in a superior position to know the material facts about which it made misrepresentations.

4. EDIG should have reasonably forseen that digEcor would rely on its misrepresentations.

5. digEcor did rely on the negligent misrepresentations.

STATUS: These items have not had summary judgment by the Court and will be ruled on at trial.

--------------

Sixth Claim for Relief (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations) from page 15:

1. EDIG has intentionally interfered with digEcor’s existing and potential economic relations with its customers and potential customers for purchase of the digEplayer.

2. EDIG did so for an improper use and by improper means.

3. This interference has caused and is causing injury to digEcor.

STATUS: These items have not had summary judgment by the Court and will be ruled on at trial.

---------------

Seventh Claim for Relief (Punitive Damages) from page 16:

1. EDIG’s actions are the result of willful and malicious conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.

STATUS: This item has not had summary judgment by the Court and will be ruled on at trial. digEcor is asking for a judgment of not less than three times the amount of compensatory and general damages awarded at trial.

---------------

Eighth Claim for Relief (Injunction) from page 17:

1. digEcor is entitled to a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, requiring EDIG to refrain from selling or licensing the DRM technology to any other party besides digEcor.

2. For EDIG to refrain from using its DRM technology in business in the aircraft industry in competition with digEcor, and from engaging in any competition with digEcor until 2009.

STATUS: (Item 1)This is a moot item because the injunction was requested on May 2007 and there has been no injunction issued by the Court. (Item 2) The Court ruled against digEcor on this item as seen in Docs 65 and 324.

-------------

Ninth Claim for Relief (Alternative Breach of Contract) from page 17:

1. This claim is asserted as an alternate to the First Claim for Relief.

2. The 2002 NDA contains a provision and promise that EDIG will not compete with digEcor by selling like or similar components for a period of seven years anywhere in the world after termination of the agreement. Found in para 6 of the NDA.

3. The 2002 NDA contains language that all the terms and provisions are valid and binding at all times and EDIG has breached this.

4. The 2002 NDA contains language that digEcor will be able to obtain an injunction to prevent threatened or continued violation of the NDA and that EDIG has breached this.

STATUS: (Item 2) The Court ruled against digEcor in Doc 324 voiding para 6 of the NDA. (Items 3 and 4) The Court has not ruled on these directly because neither Party requested summary judgment on them. But it has ruled CA law applies to the 2002 NDA and I feel confident digEcor will lose these alternative breach of contract claims at trial.

--------------

Tenth Claim for Relief (Lanham Act - Federal Unfair Competition) from page 19:

1. This claim basically boils down to digEcor alleging that EDIG, William Blakeley and Fred Falk sent correspondence to potential customers and affiliation between EDIG and digEcor.

STATUS: digEcor requested dismissal of this claim in Doc 343 on 4/23/09. The Court will likely grant the dismissal next week.

-------------

Eleventh Claim for Relief (Common Law Unfair Competition) from page 20:

1. This claim boils down to digEcor alleging that EDIG, William Blakeley and Fred Falk tried to pass the eVU as a product of digEcor and that the eVU is the next generation of digEplayer. They allege potential customers were confused and EDIG has misappropriated for their own benefit

STATUS: digEcor requested dismissal of this claim in Doc 343 on 4/23/09. The Court will likely grant the dismissal next week.

--------------

Twelfth Claim for Relief (Common Law Unfair Competition) from page 21:

1. This claim boils down to digEcor alleging that EDIG, William Blakeley and Fred Falk a method to promote the eVU which was unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent. Also that EDIG’s actions have to a material dimunition in value of digEcor’s intellectual property, including a dimunition in price that digEcor can obtain for its digEplayer and related content in the marketplace.

STATUS: digEcor requested dismissal of this claim in Doc 343 on 4/23/09. The Court will likely grant the dismissal next week.

--------------

So, it looks like there are two items of digEcor’s First Claim still undecided; their Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims undecided; and two items of their Ninth Claim undecided.