Bang & Olufsen -
posted on Apr 19, 10 07:07PM
I ask Robert if Bang & Olufsen was still a licensing partner; especially since their BO2 seems the

true design as-per our claims 'it won't work if the SD/CF card is remeoved' as I've always

contended.

He said that we continue to receive quartly royalty checks from them.
````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert:

Is our current undisclosed eVU OEM helping us with the various new technology designs on the our

next-generation eVU?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com>
To: "alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>
Subject: <no subject>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:16:24 -0700

Hi, Tim,

No... We are implementing the hardware, software and firmware upgrades and adding the technology

enhancements in-house.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016

ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert

Would a Laptop computer possibly fall under our handheld/portable patent claims sometimes in the

future?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull

HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Tue, Apr 20, 2010 05:10

Possibly.

Thank you, Tim.

Best regards,
Robert
```````````````````````````````````````````````

doni's Q sent via me
Dear Robert:

Why should e.Digital not be a micro-controller/APIcode/cache supplier to Samsung, as, ie... Zoran

is/was? Is it not worth the effort?

Tim,

Our engineering team specializes in producing MicroOS™-based portable entertainment systems. We are

working to augment the scope of our markets and products through further monetizing our Flash-R™

patent portfolio.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016

ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert:

*Will the the new pending encription patent utilize our current MicroOS patent/s as a foundation?

*Is our MicroOS unique attributes the primary reason the eVU battery is able to achieve such

superior power retention?

Or is it a compilation of both battery ability and MOS.

It says, ''This battery has smarter electronics and a fuel gauge to test the charge''

http://www.zbattery.com/Laptop-Battery-10-8V-Li-Ion-SH202-DR202-Replacement
http://www.edigital.com/evu8.htm

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View ContactAdd to Address Book HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Mon, Apr 26, 2010 07:19 PM

Hi, Tim,

There are elements of MicroOS™ in the pending patent application. We achieve extended battery life

in our portable products because of the optimization and customization of hardware and firmware

with MicroOS.

Best regards,

Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert:

I want to thank you for answering my questions here-lately... again, Thank You.

*Is it possible that by utilizing elements of our MicroOS in the new Encription Patent; that then

if applied within a network of portable devices it could further secure and enhance the DRMs of

other companies?

*Since our TDL-dataloader is ethernet and eVU is a closed turn-key sysyem; can/is our OS working

with a higher OS which can be coupled to a partners wireless network?

*Is an eVU Kiosks a possibility to target the general population for leisure?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View ContactAdd to Address Book
HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Wed, Apr 28, 2010 07:52 PMDownload All |

Hi, Tim,

Our encryption technology could work with other DRMs, but it would not provide enhanced security.

We are researching wireless content loading incorporating our proprietary loading method.

Delivering content-loaded eVUs through kiosks is one of the areas of interest we are exploring

through partnering efforts.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016

ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com
`````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert

Sanjay Mehrotra, co-founder and president flash memory vendor SanDisk recently said this pertaining

to NAND flash memory:

"From wireless handhelds to cameras, tablets and servers, NAND flash technology will be embedded in

billions of devices over the next 10 years, says Sanjay Mehrotra, co-founder and president flash

memory vendor SanDisk. And, as the number of devices using NAND technology increase, the

functionality and security of applications embedded in flash chip controllers will significantly

improve, he added."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176086/Flash_memory_set_to_benefit_from_mobile_Internet_exp

losion?source=rss_news

Is it possibly that MicroOS could have elements critical to the itiology of these flash chip-

controler aspects of flash memory?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

Hi, Tim,

Yes, MicroOS™ could.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com
``````````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Robert:

We see MicroOS is termed a software and hardware solution. Could the two be combined in the

future to augment our own unique flash controler based microprocessor vs putting it on someone-

elses chip; a solution which achieves superior functions over the current competition? Possibly

with a partner?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull

HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Tue, May 04, 2010 06:19 PMDownload All

Hi, Tim,

MicroOS™ is a proprietary low level operating system that we developed and implemented in hardware

designs based on our digital video/audio platform (DVAP). Even though MicroOS was originally

developed for flash memory, it has proven to be very flexible and adaptable in enhancing devices

that contain hard drives and require significant content file management. MicroOS can also support

and manage multiple codecs and digital rights management systems on a single device. This

flexibility could be built into a chip if hardware designers and manufacturers wanted to run their

products on MicroOS.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016

ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

`````````````````````````````````````````
2

Dear Robert:

*Are the airlines that are currently using our eVUs able to input their own ancillary adds

themselves, or is their material sent into edigital to be incorporate then sent-out with content

updates?

*Are any of our customers using the credit-card swipe in any capasity?

*Do the airline passengers pay for eVU usage with cash, before boarding , or can they use the

eVU card-swipe for this also?

*Do our eVUs now have 'Powered by e.Digital' or something similar displayed somewhere on them?

Respectfully,,

Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky

Dear Robert:

*When airlines test different portable-IFEs; is it conceivable they would test several different

IFE brands during same time-span but perhaps on differing flights/routes?

Respectfully,,

Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky

Dear Robert:

I have a question about our 737 patent that I hope can clarify; it pertains to identifying and

marking a bad segment to initiate the beginning point for a new message.

*Does the word segments of patent 737, claim 6, line (b)...represent an erase block, or a

read/write block?

Respectfully,,

Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull

HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 05:35 PMDownload All

Hi, Tim,

We load all the content and ads for our airline customers. Our direct airline customers do not rent

the eVUs; they supply them to their business and first class passengers. Many of Mezzo’s customers

rent them to their passengers, however we are not aware of any eVU airline customer currently using

the credit card feature. Most airlines don’t share their trial test procedures.

A stylized Powered by e.Digital is on the back of eVU.

The word, “segments” in the patent, claim and line in question is not limited to an erase block.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016

ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

Dear Robert -

Please allow me to restructure this question... Trying to understand how we may differ and have

advantages from other processes.

*Specifically, can claim 6 line (b) of patent 737 when marking bad segments under a read/write

block logical format size....salvage the balance of the erase block(array) , or would the whole

array be marked dead?

Respectfully,

Tim

Hi, Tim,

It's my understanding that the marking of defective memory segments is not
limited to the whole array.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016

ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

posted on Jul 01, 10 07:16PM Use the IP Check tool [?]
Dear Robert

* Were all of our five flash patents utilized in the FlashBack Voice Recorder?

If not which was left out -

Respectully,

Tim Scott, Paducah Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block

SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 01, 2010 06:11 PMDownload All |

Yes

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

Dear Robert:

This statement from an IP blog has me confused. Will both sides have to agree on an independent

'expert' to exemplify the validity of the patents to present to and help the judge make a

determination after all evidence is presented; or is it, to each-his-own; meaning we have our

expert/s and they have theirs and both try to make best arguments then the judge rules on those.?

''My answer is , An intellectual property expert during Markman hearing as a consulting expert can

evaluate the strength of the patents in question and assist the attorney in determining the best

strategy for any license negotiations. This expert or experts will use various patent databases and

patent files that detail the history of the patent prosecution to make a determination as to the

validity of the patents, the likelihood of actual infringement, and suggest the strategy.''

Respectfully,

Tim

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block

SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 08, 2010 01:11 PMDownload All |

Each side has their own expert.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

Dear Robert:

Will Ron Maltiel be one of our experts to help in discovery, or will he only be utilized if we go

to trial?

Sincerely,

Tim

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block

SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 08, 2010 03:14 PMDownload All | Tim,

This is confidential information. Thank you for your understanding and continued support.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

Dear Robert - sent 8-9-10

e.Digital told its shareholders that we would get more information 'later this year' on the new

upgraded eVU system you were planning last Fall/Spring-10.

Now that you have changed directives and only plan a newer/sleeker eVU design with hardware-mods;

will we still get to see-it in action or get more information in 2010?

Respectfully,

Tim

Hi, Tim,

Per our August 4th press release, should IFE business conditions improve or we partner outside of

portable IFE, we can rapidly complete and release the next generation upgrade.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016

ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

From: tim scott <alertid@att.net>Add to Contacts
To: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> 8-11-10

I remember a few years back our proxy materil stated how many applicable airlines there are in the

world.

Do you remember the number?

respectfully,

tim

Hi Tim

Even though there are hundreds of airlines, including, cargo, transport, charter and other

specialized air carriers, there are approximately 150 airlines that we consider prime potential

eVU™ customers.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016

ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

Dear Robert

Currently our MicroOS is specialized/based on 'Portable Entertainment Systems.'

As e.Digital stated, “In connection with our plans to expand our IP business beyond the Flash-R

patent portfolio, we are collaborating with Dr. Pat Nunally on developing new technologies.''

Could these new technologies possibly go into areas other than entertainment?


Respectfully,

Tim Scott

Tue, August 31, 2010 6:08:14 PM
From: Robert Putnam<rputnam@edigital.com>
View Contact
To: <alertid@att.net>

Hi, Tim,

We look forward to releasing more information about our collaboration with Dr. Nunally on

developing new technologies in future Company communications. I can disclose that they are

unrelated to IFE.

Best regards,
Robert Putnam,Sr. Vice Presidente.Digital Corporation

| 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

9-13-10
Dear Robert:

Our June 27, 2006 PR says we contracted with Pat Nunally to identify products/companies

infrienging on our patents.

How is he being paid/compensated for his work? Where does/did it come under in our 10-K/s.

Is he an employee of e.Digital? - since we've now learned he's developing new technologies for

us.

Respectfully,

Tim

Hi, Tim,

Dr. Pat Nunally is a paid consultant of the Company and his fees are included with other operating

expenses in our financial statements.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

Morning Robert, Note: question sent @ 10:19 AM CA time, reply received @ 10:49 AM.

With reference to the recent Srilankan eVU order, as well as past such PR's of other customers, is

the quantity sold, the unit price and profit margin per unit, considered company confidential, and

if so, can you provide a brief reasoning why e.Digital does not make such information public?

Thank you,

EDIG JOE

Hi, Joe,

Two main reasons: 1) Our competitors don't provide any of this information and, 2) Most of our

airline customers do not want the size of their orders (units ordered and dollar amounts) disclosed

in our press releases.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

sky56 - posted on Oct 23, 09 02:15PM
I asked this question in Aug.

Response from RP-

Cross licensing helps facilitate settlements and builds our base of intellectual property (IP). Due

to the confidentiality terms in the licensing and settlement agreements, the only information we

can provide has been/will be issued through press releases and our SEC filings. How we use the

cross licensed IP will be made public when we utilize it in our business and/or product offerings.

DABOSS - Tier 1 vs Tier 2
posted on Mar 11, 10 07:57PM
A bit of clarity as we work through the process....

Per our earlier e-mail exchange, as we explained in the 2008 shareholders meeting, tier one filings

are being directed at companies we believe infringe mainly on key claims within the '774 patent

whereas tier two cases are expected to be filed against companies we believe infringe on specific

claims within the Flash-R™ patent portfolio pertaining to fundamental techniques in utilizing flash

memory (embedded or removable). The type of companies that we expect to file against in tier two

suits will be different from our tier one suits.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

northtocool - e-mail from RP
posted on Jan 05, 10 03:18PM

Thank you for your e-mail, Mark. The current round of filings are focused on our U.S. Patent

5.491,774 relating to the use of flash memory in portable recording devices. U.S. Patents 5,787,445

and 5,839,108 relate to MicroOS™ and flash memory and are expected to figure more prominently in

future filings.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

DABOSS - posted on Jul 01, 10 12:41PM
I asked if a Markman ruling carries over into the later rounds of lawsuits or does it have to be

revisited with each group of subsequent filings.

Here is the response:

It is our understanding that the Markman process results in definitive rulings by a Federal Court

regarding the meaning of specific claim terms within a patent (or patents). Once a Federal Court

has issued its Markman rulings, it becomes difficult to vary from those meanings and in most cases

there are no further claim constructions undertaken. Generally, the original rulings carry over to

subsequent defendants.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

DRVEN - Sent 4-28-09
Dear Robert,
Let me congratulate you and the others in the management team for the recent court victory. We all

have been hoping for a favorable outcome. I have a number of questions and I would be very obliged

if you would answer them, or at least as many as you feel you are able to without compromising the

plans of the company.

1. The recently acquired EFB by IMS reminds us all that competition never sleeps. This acquisition

provided them with a new product and a new channel of placing their products in the airline

industry. Do we in Edig have an answer to such moves?

2. Does this mean that we lose our ranking in the industry?

3. How does the quality of our product measure up against the competition?

4. How does Edig’s sale efforts compare to that of our competition?

5. How many people are involved in sales? Whatever the number might be, do we have an adequate

number to do the required job? If not, why not since now the company seems to have adequate

resources to hire more people? Who has replaced Mr. Falk?

6. Why does IMS appear to be so successful in placing its products even under the most trying

circumstances of the present economic environment?

7. How does Edig plan on using the increased revenues?

8. Is our engineering personnel adequate to stay competitive in the business of technological

innovation? How many engineers do we have at this time?

9. Does the management have any plans to revise the business plan and become a technology firm

living thereby on fees derived from licensing its technology? Ranbo has done this much but their

engineering department has far more engineers than we do.

10. Could you please guide us shareholders in regard to future projected sales?

11. Is there any conflict of interest between DM and Edig in view of the fact that their goals

might be diverging? More explicitly: In the short-run both companies would like easy and fast

settlements; Edig needs working capital and MD would like inexpensive settlements. But in the long

run Edig would like big settlements that might entail large outlays of time and money and DM might

not want to engage in protracted and expensive court battles. In this case what is management’s

strategy?

I will be grateful if you try to answer any (preferably all) questions.

Thank you very much in advance

Sincerely Yours

RP's reply

posted on Apr 29, 09 08:08AM
Thank you for your e-mail, Dr. Per our press releases and SEC filings, our business strategy is to

market our eVU™ products and services to U.S. and international airlines, other companies in the

travel and leisure industry, and to healthcare organizations. We employ both direct sales to

customers and sales through value added resellers that provide marketing, logistic and/or content

services to customers. We are also commercializing our Flash-R™ patent portfolio through licensing

and we are pursuing enforcement by litigating against those who may be infringing our patents. Our

international legal firm, Duane Morris LLP, is handling our patent enforcement matters on a

contingent fee basis. We’re pleased to have favorably licensed and settled six of the eight cases

that initiated our intellectual property monetization efforts, with more filings being prepared.

Since comments we make (either in company communications, SEC filings, or individual e-mail

responses that get posted on Internet chat boards) are scrutinized by opposing attorneys and the

companies they represent, we believe it is in the best interest of e.Digital and its shareholders

that we keep our IP monetization strategies confidential so that our words are not used against us

during settlement discussions and/or litigation. The same holds true regarding providing greater

detail to our competition on growing our eVU business.

We believe our eVU system is the best dedicated portable IFE device in the industry. As to our

“ranking” in the portable IFE industry, none of our competitors provide financial results other

than unverified claims of “doubling” their business, etc. Suffice it to say, we believe we’re one

of the leaders. As we stated in our press release of January 21, 2009, with the recent and expected

influx of new licensing revenues, we are in a better position to pursue business opportunities and

partnerships in the medical industry, and in other segments of the travel and leisure industry.

Fred Falk’s experience in building and managing partnering and licensing relationships align with

the Company’s strategy to grow its business through mutually beneficial partnering arrangements

rather than through building and paying for an internal sales team. We also anticipate a successful

resolution of the digEcor lawsuit will greatly benefit our efforts to grow the eVU business.

We have a creative, dedicated engineering team that has successfully designed several products

based on our proprietary digital video/audio platform, and we believe they will continue to keep us

ahead of the technological innovation curve.

Thank you for your continued support.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

Daboss -9-09-2010, CTFR Final Rejection Received per Encription Patent #20070011602.

Mgnt Response to us: ''With the assistance of Dr. Pat Nunally and our patent counsel, we are

examining the new prior art cited by the USPTO in their latest office action on our digital storage

media encryption patent application. After a thorough examination, our patent counsel will prepare

and file our response to the office action.''

EDIGOKIE - 9-22-10
My email to Robert Putnam today followed by his response...
posted on Sep 22, 10 10:38PM Use the IP Check tool [?]
Good morning Robert. I have tried to avoid communicating with you too frequently as I can only

imagine how busy you must be with the legal actions underway. To be honest, we are building a new

house and since I chose to do my own framing and wiring I have been too busy to monitor progress in

our legal proceedings. We are now in the drywall and painting stage (I can't lift sheet rock and my

hands don't fit a paint brush) so I have spent the last couple of days trying to catch up.
I anxiously await the markman in January. A favorable ruling, which I have no doubt will occur,

will certainly provide impetus for infringers to settle. The recent discovery ruling was, in my

view, an immediate impetus to infringers to settle before the markman raises the cost of their

holdout. I guess my questions at this point are:
1. Are we taking a "harder line" with holdouts and those who push us to the limit in terms of what

we are willing to settle for?
2. e.Digital has eluded to "actions that will make e.Digital more appealing to large investors in

past communications. Are we getting close to announcements in that area? Are these actions

different than and separate from the legal process?
3. Finally, can you provide an update on our ongoing evu sales/development. Is evu still a viable

product or have we decided our future is in monetizing our patent portfolio?
I am hopeful you can provide some insights although I know you are severely constrained as to what

information you can provide. I am sure you understand shareholders crave information and it seems

to have been a while since we were given something substantive to digest. Thanks again and remember

I will be the first to recommend you for the big corner office on the 49th floor of e.Digital tower

when we finally break out.
Kirk
Robert called me late this afternoon and we talked for about 15 or 20 minutes. Obviously there was

much he could not comment on, but what he did tell me has me more excited about my investment than

I have been in a long time. First, the evu is not dead but is definitely suffering from the hard

times that have fallen on the airline industry. He did say that we had some good meetings at the

recent AIX and that we are now in the position where most of our evu's in service are out of

warranty and we can, therefore, expect an increase in repair and service revenues. I saw this as

nothing of significance and certainly nothing that would excite me as a long time shareholder. My

enthusiasm jumped sharply when we discussed the recent discovery ruling and the January 28th

markman hearing. Robert cautioned that we cannot read too much into the recent ruling, but pointed

out that the court used verbage from our brief to shoot down the defendants' obvious attempt to

delay. What he said next may be old news but because I have been tied up with building our new home

was new and exciting to me. To paraphrase 'we will entertain any defendants who want to come to us

with a large check in hand and want to talk in serious terms about settlement but we are going to

the markman. We are going to find out where we stand so we can move on. We feel very good about our

position but obviously there is no way to know how the court is going to rule.'
The inportant point to me is that we are not going to play games. No nusiance settlements. No

defendants leading us around by the nose. Win or lose we are going forward.
I apologize if this is old news but perhaps there are others who are as far behind the power curve

as I am. January 28 is the hearing date - only the judge knows how long it will take for the ruling

to hit. Go edig...

I confess RP was vague about when these actions were going to take place and provided no real

clarity as to what these actions might include. He did point out that a successful markman would be

a very clear signal to institutional investors that e.Digital is not only a company with a high

value patent portfolio, but that that portfolio has been found to be defendable and enforceable in

a court of law. Sorry, I was so pleased to hear we are going to push on to the markman and, again

to paraphrase RP, find out what we have. I must point out that only those comments between the two aprostrophes are Robert's comments (paraphrased). The rest of the remarks were my opinion of what he meant or at least what I heard him to mean. He flatly stated that we are going for the markman. We are going to find out what we have and move on one way or another. A win and we move substantially higher very quickly. A loss and, well, at least we would know where we stand. I think the fact that no prior art has been discovered and the recent discovery ruling are indicators of the strength of our case. But you know better than I the vagaries of the legal process. We could feel we won the case and get jack slapped with the final ruling. After 11, or is it 12, years I am ready for some finality. Be well my friend. I have visions of little gilgamashes still dancing in my head.

Kirk