Further re Litigation

Rodime PLC
19 January 2000



On 16 April 1999 the Company reported the findings of the U.S. Court of Appeal
for the Federal Circuit ('the Appeal Court') in the appeals lodged by the
Company and Seagate against the judgements issued in 1997 by the Central
District Court of California ('the District Court').  In April 1999 the Appeal
Court vacated (i.e overturned) the previous judgements in two important
respects:

i)  In 1997 the District Court had interpreted Rodime's patent claims to        
   include thermal compensation and on this basis decided that Seagate did not  
  infringe Rodime's patent.  The Appeal Court adopted a different               
 interpretation of these claims and decided that Rodime's claims 3,5,8 and      
17 of the '383 patent do not include thermal compensation.  The Appeal         
Court therefore overturned the District Courts' finding of non-infringement    
and sent the case back to the District Court for trial to resolve whether      
or not there has been infringement under the new interpretation of Rodime's    
claims.

ii) The Appeal Court also vacated the District Court's judgement regarding      
   Rodime's California state law claims.  These claims assert that Seagate      
  engaged in unfair competition and interference with Rodime's business for     
 Seagate's prospective economic advantage.  The District Court had earlier      
held that Rodime did not allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action    
for trial.  The Appeal Court found that there were sufficient issues of        
fact for these to be sent back to the District Court for trial.

On 1 October 1999 Seagate petitioned the US Supreme Court for a review of the
Appeal Court's judgements issued in April 1999.  Rodime filed its response brief
with the Supreme Court in December 1999.

On 18th January 2000, the Supreme Court declined Seagate's petition without
comment, upholding the judgements of the Appeal Court.

The Directors are encouraged by the latest decision of the Supreme Court.  The
litigation should now  proceed to a jury trial in the District Court and
shareholders will be kept informed of progress.  The pace and outcome of the
litigation will depend on the actions taken by the District Court and by the
parties.