" Handal in his brief with ArcSolft speaks to specific Claim Terms in the Newly Granted Patents that would provide evidence that could challange or change the Opinion of Judge Tigar."

=============================

""Courts have found that collateral estoppel does not apply where subsequent “reexamination history needs to be considered in connection with construing the claims.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., Civ. No. 08-309, 2009 WL 4928029, at *16-17 & n. 1 (D.Del. 2009) citing, Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. FEMA, 126 F.3d 461, 477 (3d Cir. 1977).

Similarly, the Court should likewise consider claims from subsequently issued related patents. ""

Like subsequent prosecution history, the cited evidence raises different issues than those before Judge Tigar in Dropcam. To be clear, e.Digital does not believe Judge Tigar’s claim constructions, if adopted here, would in any way be case dispositive. However, e.Digital’s primary concern is preserving the scope of all of the claims in the patent family, including those that were granted after this case was filed.