Steven:
Thank you for the detailed analysis which is a real contribution to the thread. Yes there are a lot of ifs and the major problem with obtaining information relating to the lawsuit has been, and remains, that much of the documentation, affidavits and submissions are under seal but the the IP nature of the claims.
I am attempting to obtain at least a copy of J. Breyer's order to give us more guidance. Additionally, I understand that a member of the thread has e-mail correspondence from the lead counsel indicating that a press release will be forth coming. I would assume that SNDK will release the information when most advantageous (I'd do if the day before the IPO if I were them considering some of the business practices of Lexar - they issued a misleading PR shortly prior to a SNDK secondary offering).
As to what "part" of the claim was subject to the granting of partial summary judgment, once again, without the actual complaint and motion filing, it is tough to say the impact of the ruling. However, if the partial SJ relates to "contributory infringement", it appear that at least "a patent" claim has been held valid and the cross motion to hold it "invalid" has been denied. Which patent - I do not know.
As to whether Lexar will appeal - they have no choice but to "appeal" or "deal". I would anticipate that the next action called for by the Judge or Magistrate may be another settlement conference. However, I believe your analysis of Lexar's response to the ruling is well taken - they will do just as you say - vigorously disagree with the decision and indicate an intention to appeal in hopes of saving the offering.
If I am able to obtain copies of the court documents, I will keep the thread advised. If any member of the thread has access to the Court ( my being from NJ), their help would be appreciated. |
