"The most recent 41 that have to do with claim 1 of 108 should be able to proceed without being encumbered by the estoppel ruling."

At a limited value for settlement considerations, as e.Digital is dealing from a dis advantage.

774 has a problem, where the legal system is considering it not to have RAM...and that is the premise of the Markman ruling.

108...now stuck in a CA ruling by the SC judge....does have RAM stated and considered within its claims and teaching content of the patent.

There is a RAM question un resolved between the two patents.

108 can go through a claims construction process if e.Digital feels it wants to run the full length and get a Markman ruling on 108.

The problem is the unresolved RAM issue of 774 ...it will get in the way of claims construction for 108, and defendants will (have, as I have read details @ one point) considering similar claims construction language.

e.Digital, @ this time, is settling for a fraction of what it could be getting with settlements of 108 had it not been tied up in the appeal and the RAM issue of 774 were not in question. The 774 RAM question exists until a court says it can be re-litigated as a consequence of the re-exam. If it is allowed to be re-litigated that implication lifts the RAM question and it will end there, as the outcome of that litigation will favor e.Digital and the defendants know this.

As I feel, 108 can run the full length of the claims construction process, however, it's a lengthy process and there is friction between it, 774 question and the appeal.

We are hinged to the appeal and it needs to be resolved.

When that happens, 108 will settle for much more without running the full length of claims construction, as a result of the 774 resolution and itself being physically shaken free of the appeal.

Settlements then turn from e.Digital being at a disadvantage to having the upper hand with any patent claim they feel they want to enforce.

At this time we are gliding without power until they can restart the engine.

doni