One of us is missing the point.

Did any of the infringers use an EDIG-produced FlashBack device? Answer, obviously, is NO. If they had, EDIG would have been paid for the product and there would be no issue.

So, though EDIG offered up ITS FlashBack device as evidence, it was probably just to demonstrate the similarity to devices actually used by others. Was EDIG's product ever put under their noses for review, and duplication, in a "legally binding" (Notice) verifiable fashion? Unknown, but it would appear not (IMO). At least not proveable, as such probably would have been entered into evidence.

That's my point. But please correct me if I'm missing something. Remember , I'm "freshly returning" and learning the latest. Help is appreciated (and the purpose of this board).

SGE