Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: orkrious who wrote (8019)	11/8/1999 6:23:00 PM
From: Binx Bolling	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

The Business Wire post you made says, "On October 25, 1999, SanDisk withdrew its third and final motion for judgment against the unpatentability of Lexar's patent claims. Accordingly, all of the claims of the Lexar patent remain valid and in tact, and have been given a 'clean bill of health.' " Sandisk filed a 10Q with the SEC on November 4, 1999 which states, "A hearing on this motion has been deferred by the court until January 2000. In August 1999 the Company had a mandatory settlement meeting with Lexar. No settlement was reached through this meeting. A trial date has not yet been set. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its patents, but there can be no assurance that these efforts will be successful"

To: orkrious who wrote (8019)	11/8/1999 7:27:00 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Jay, re: The Lexar Suit The general counsel's name is not listed in any of the documents I found and the Lexar patent is not mentioned either (U.S. patent patent No. 5,388,083). Also, SanDisk's patent infringement suit (that I referenced) was begun in 1998, not 1995. Also, the court locations appear different... The current press release indicates the following venue: US Patent and Trademark Office as well as a "a three judge panel of the US Patent Board of Appeals and Interferences", not Judge Charles Breyer who is presiding over the suit I mentioned. I am not certain, but it appears that there are several concurrent suits going on here. I will double check my references here. I am still waiting for some faxes from a court document service I ordered over a week and a half ago. This may explain why SanDisk is seeking "partial summary judgement" in the information I referenced recently. Perhaps this contested patent has been cut out of a "summary judgement". Ausdauer

To: orkrious who wrote (8019)	11/8/1999 7:45:00 PM
From: Binx Bolling	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 60323

Appears to be a different patent, not No. 5,388,083 sandisk.com

To: orkrious who wrote (8019)	11/8/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Jay, re: Lexar Media I guess you found the information first. Thanks for posting it. Notice the remarks near the end of the press release that Lexar is now free to enforce the patent which was disputed. I did not see where Lexar actually states that SanDisk is infringing, but I suspect a statement like this is to follow shortly. Its (a counterclaim's) absence from today's news is curious. I am certain that the Lexar general counsel would leap at any opportunity to embellish such a report. When it gets down to brass tacks, what if SanDisk infringes on 1 Lexar patent and Lexar infringes on 4 SanDisk patents (hypothetically speaking only). How would that impact the proceedings I mentioned earlier? Do you or does anyone else have any ideas? Ausdauer

To: orkrious who wrote (8019)	11/11/1999 6:25:00 AM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Jay Dreifus and Thread, re: legal options for redress, remedy and reparation I am concerned about the possibility of an injunction against Lexar if the courts allow it. I don't believe it is SanDisk's intention to "annihiliate" a competitor. Indeed, the spirit with which the CompactFlash standard was originally created was for open, unrestrictive licensing to allow for adoption of the form factor, to create a stable platform for OEM's to base designs, and to create second sources of product on the open market. Lexar has been very stubborn in refusing to recognize SanDisk's IP and has protracted this litigation unnecessarily. But rather than mortally wounding them with an injunction (in whatever form would be typically applied in this situation) it may be reasonable to sit back and think of less drastic measures. I would like to know, from a legal perspective based on prior precedent in the patent infringement arena, if the concept of establishing an interest-bearing escrow account whereby Lexar would be required to deposit a provisional licensing fee per unit sold (based on the intended or anticipated licensing fees SanDisk has established with other licensees) is feasible or allowable. If SanDisk were to prevail, they would be entitled to the proceeds within the account, back-calculated royalties on past CF sales, and other miscellaneous items to which they may be entitled (punitive damages? reimbursement of court costs and legal fees?). If Lexar were to prevail they would be entitled to the funds in the account and whatever other remedies the court allows. I think this would be a kinder, gentler option. An injunction restricting domestic product sales would be crippling for Lexar and may induce Reimer to scuttle the company before SanDisk could receive any reparations. Just a thought. Ausdauer SanDisk...The kinder & gentler flash memory innovator.