silver...
NOTICE To Terminate Electronic Service by Defendants Kyocera Communications, Inc., Kyocera Corporation, Kyocera International, Inc., Kyocera Wireless Corporation, Samson Technologies Corp., Teac America, Inc. (Cohen, Eric) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
Have you noticed other defendants file such ?
Anyway...that aside
Teac America, Inc. was a positive issue....for Flash R
license 11...4...17. referred to as “TEAC”(“Tascam”) 29.TEAC America, Inc. DONE with prejudice (doc 376 JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL / 377 3-1-2011)...PR 2 -28-2011announced today that it has entered into a license and settlement agreement with TEAC America, Inc. (TEAC). Under the terms of the confidential agreement, TEAC obtained a license and release on the Company's Flash-R™ patent portfolio and paid e.Digital a one-time licensing fee. about "We are pleased to have entered into our 11th Flash-R portfolio related licensing and settlement agreement,"
It settled on FlashR prior to the ruling .....Markman opinion dated.... 6-28-2011....filed 6-28-2011
The way I see things, had TEAC waited and the judge ruled on e.Digitals proposed claims construction....it may have had to pony up much more, those that settled prior did not want to take the chance.
IMVHO, both defendants and plaintiff where after setting issues for future events.....and the court was not going there. We are going to have to have the USPTO sort out that which the court did not want to tread.
IMO, FlashR is in play if DM feels it need move on without the other issues and try for a new claims construction proposal some where else. Or wait on the re-exam issue to play out and carry the claims sorted out into the court.
I say they simply move on to another court and whatever happens ....happens with regard to the re-exam.
I can't see them standing still when they do not have to do so.
doni
