Recent ruling by judge Kreiger to keep " Woody" still around for Markman hearing depending upon

the evidence that is proffered is a big plus for e.DIGITAL legal team.

I believe judge would like to hear from "Woody" testifying not on claims meaning of flash as sole memory

but other claims meaning of the flash in removable devices ( audio & video signals) . Judge trying to define

e.DIGITAL patent invention for flash in removable devices and may need further clarification in this case.

If some of the defendants from now till 1,28, 2011 able to subpena those 2 highly confidential exhibits

from e.DIGITAL team , we will likely notice several defendants will settle prior to trial date.

still i hope there will be couple of defendants remains for one day Markman hearing in order to reach

total victory for our patent interpretation claim.

(this is just my own personal opinion)

From DOC 303

Moreover, Defendants’ chicanery with their “main memory” verbiage continues in this

portion of their Opening Brief. Reading Defendants’ Opening Brief, one would think the ‘218

Patent discusses “flash memory” as “main memory.” (D. Op. Br. at 17). While Defendants want to turn the “flash memory” discussed in the ‘218 Patent into the “main memory” (in lieu of RAM) of the ‘774 Patent, neither the Patents-in-Suit nor the ‘218 Patent use the term “main memory.” Thus, Defendants’ characterization of the ‘218 Patent as a basis to introduce the concepts of main memory into the claims of the ‘774 Patent is misleading, at best.