"because it was never litigated in the Colorado case , does not share common ancestry with the ‘ 774 patent , and includes express intrinsic evidence that precludes application of the Colorado courts claim construction ruling as to the unrelated “774 patent."
That being, 108 utilizes SRAM
Claim term (b)cache of Claim 1....is SRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a most horrific quagmire....and there is no friggen need of it....the SC court is playing the favorites game....and knows that this will be overturned. The SC court is looking for nothing other than eating up e.Digitals time.
If it's not overturned....this country is ONE MASSIVE SUCK HOLE.....plain and simple.... and there is no justice in this system...it's all bought and paid for. That CA ruling was a joke, that thought simply, because, the judge included 108 in his CA ruling where it had nothing to do with the CO ruling.
Thanks sman, sorry for the bust out....I'm not sick of e.Digital...I'm sick of the system.
Good grief, and some are picking on the company as the problem.
e.Digital(FRED) hold your ground.
doni
