John, one can't second guess these patent suits without seeing the details of the pleadings. However, one should note that the charge seems to be based on one of the more recent patents obtained by SNDK. We know that SNDK patents include references to a long history of other SNDK patents, which tends to strengthen the validity arguments.
It looks to me as if this suit will be settled out of court because SNDK appears to be in a position to permanently enjoin MU from producing anything that uses this patent. If so, MU will choose to settle by making some sort of licensing and royalty arrangement with SNDK. That appears to be the main strategy being pursued by SNDK: Don't carry the action through to a final court decision. It's too expensive and time consuming, especially given the right to appeal. Instead, show the other guys you have enough muscle to make things tough for them and try to work out an agreement that will ensure a decent royalty stream.
When little guys take on the big enchiladas, even if the little guys win, it often doesn't help them much. The best case of this sort is the one involving Microsoft, which had infringed a data compression patent of one of its suppliers. The company won the case in court, but it drained so much energy that the company hasn't done anything since. Meanwhile, the cost of memory has gotten so cheap that data compression is really no big deal any more. In areas where technology moves fast, sometimes a key patent can be supplanted by other developments that cause the value of the patent to fall rapidly. This, as we all know, has been happening in the flash memory sector, making some of the key patents owned by SNDK relatively valueless. Given this situation, why not do your best to work out some sort of licensing and royalty arrangement, even if it isn't perfect?
Art |
