Thanks, Joe.

Lots of interesting, convincing, and relevant information here.

For those who don't have time to peruse the whole thing, I've pasted in a copy of the TOC, which could also be seen as an outline of EDIG's argument.

The full document contains diagrams, details, etc.

IMHO Handal has made a very strong case.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1



II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................1



A. The Colorado Claim Construction Proceedings ......................................1



B. Reexamination of the ’774 Patent............................................................4



III. LEGAL STANDARD.......................................................................................5



IV. ARGUMENT....................................................................................................7



A. The Issues Presented Here Are Not Identical To Those Litigated



In Colorado And, Thus, Were Not Fully And Fairly Litigated ............7



1. The Reexamination History Was Not Available To The



Colorado Court ...........................................................................8



2. The Reexamination History Is Material To The



Construction Of The Term Construed in Colorado. ...................9



3. New Claims 33 And 34 Of The ’774 Patent Are Not



Identical To Claims 1 And 19 Litigated In The Colorado



Case ..........................................................................................12



4. The Gibson Guitar Corp. Case Is Distinguishable.......................14



B. The Colorado Case Did Not Proceed To Final Judgment......................16



C. The Court Is Not Bound By The Claim Construction Decision



Reached In The Colorado Case...........................................................17



D. Collateral Estoppel Cannot Be Applied To The ’108 Patent



Because It Was Not Asserted In Colorado .........................................18



E. Alternatively, E.Digital Proposes That The Court Postpone



Decision On The Motion Until After Completion Of Markman



Proceedings.........................................................................................21



V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................22