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: Seldom_Blue who wrote (16436)	11/4/2000 10:03:26 AM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Blue and others, The following memorandum is of particular interest to me. It appears as if Judge Breyer has already expressed an opinion on patent validity. I would hope that this carries some weight in the proceedings that will follow later this month. I wish to read this memorandum in detail... 3/28/00 221 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying Lexar's counter-motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement [175-1], denying Lexar's motion for summary judgment of invalidity [171-1], granting Sandisk's motion for partial summary judgment of contributory infringement [130-1] ( Date Entered: 3/30/00) (cc: all counsel) [3:98-cv-01115] (mcl) [Entry date 03/30/00] [3:98cv1115] _________________________________________________________________________ Lexar's case seems to be based on two lines of attack. First, the patent is unenforceable because of SanDisk's conduct as a founding member of the CompactFlash Association. Message 14691643 I created a timeline which seeks to delineate whether, in fact, the CFA was more of a consortium (which I don't believe is the case) or whether it was an association whereby SanDisk already had a recipe for success (the 1994 invention of CompactFlash) and then encouraged others to participate. Somewhere along the way Eli mentions the number of man hours and the dollar figures that go along with the creation of a working CompactFlash prototype. To think that SanDisk would give away this valuable (and costly) portion of the IP for free seems to be a stretch. They really exhausted a lot of the company's funds in creating CompactFlash (in essence, they risked the company on the success of CompactFlash) and now people are surprised they want credit (licenses) for this effort. Judge Breyer's latest memorandum suggests that Mr. Reimer's account of the mechanisms of the CFA differ from those of Mr. Frank, the Executive Director of the CompactFlash Association, who was apparently deposed earlier in the trial. "Section II of Lexar's opposition identifies two alleged misrepresentations: '5/1/00 Frank Dep. at 170' and '5/1/00 Frank Dep. at 185.' Lexar Opp. at 4. Neither of these deposition citations comes close to supporting Lexar's allegations of affirmative misrepresentations. Accordingly, no reasonable trier of fact could find that SanDisk made the affirmative misrepresentations alleged by Lexar." The second line of attack is different. I think that Lexar will try to poke holes in '987 such that one would interpret that '987 is not a wholly original concept. The docket lists three potential testimonies that may undermine '987. These are from Jeff Stai, Karl Lofgren and Frederik Buch. I believe Mr. Stai and Mr. Lofgren hold disk drive emulation patents as they relate to hard drives (rotating media). I believe some of SanDisk's patents list companies like Quantum and Western Digital as co-inventors or at least use these innovations as prior art in the '987 patent application. Mr. Buch was a Wafer Scale Integration employee during Eli's tenure. I think some notations in his lab notebook are being brought into evidence. Perhaps some facets of the '987 patent belong to WSI. At least that is what Lexar seems to be after. Good Luck to SanDisk longs... Ausdauer@did_Fred_Buch_invent_CompactFlash?.com