That about sums it up letgo.
From my prospective, it's not a legal consideration, it's a persuasive consideration. The defendant is trying to add up conditions from three different sources and draw a conclusion that claim 1 is not patent- able. The foundation of the considerations are based on logically linking data with summary babble to that effect..
What e.Digital has going for it :
1. e.Digitals patented methods... do not patent the idea of logically linking data.
2. e.Digitals patented methods went through a prosecution where the considerations of logically linking data in a NOVEL fashion was approved and patented.
3. The claim term in question, of claim one, was put to the test in a recent claims construction process in determining the difference in meaning of what the defendant wanted phrased (basically what is proposed for the IPR review) and the phrase as published in the patent. The court decided to leave the published phrase as is, where I feel the court understood the difference and the NOVEL considerations.
It's up to the defendant to sway the PTO panel that the patented methods are not NOVEL in utilizing logically linked data and not simply a summary based on the mere fact that the patent utilizes linked data as defendant initially proposes.
If I were e.Digital I'd go for broke and jamb this issue down their throat....but that's me. As I see it, e.Digital deserves a solid cash flow for the next 7 years, or so, on this issue...Where settlements are not based on IPR threats from defendants that may not have a foundation.
I wait for e.Digitals April response to at least get a feel of how Handal feels about it....and I hope that paper work is filed, @ minimum, prior to any Micron settlement.
Anyway... GLTA on this matter.
doni
