Yankee, I didn't mean to single you out, or even lump you in with some of the others who are giving them credence, you don't, much appreciative of that, I enjoy reading your stuff.
People here who keep buying into the FUDsters nonsense, too many people are give them credence and start quaking with fear, stop, they don't even get the proper patent number when throwing crap at the wall.
Furthermore, the Court finds that the stage of litigation, the lack of undue prejudice to Plaintiff, and a likelihood that reexamination of the patent will simplify the issues in question and trial of this case weigh in favor of granting Defendant's Motion for Stay. Thus, Defendant's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 107) is hereby GRANTED.
On December 7, 2012, the PTO granted Defendant's request and ordered reexamination. (Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester Inter Partes Reexamination, ECF No. 107-2.) Additionally, the PTO issued a concurrent Office Action rejecting claims 1-7 of the '295 Patent. (PTO Office Action, ECF No. 107-3.) On December 13, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Pending Patent Reexamination. (ECF No. 107.)
The USPTO already rejected the '295 patent, that is why the case was stayed, because the Judge said it would not hold up. Stop humoring the FUDsters.
Smart Modular's case involves a patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,250,295) whose validity the Court found to be in doubt. Last December, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) concluded there was a reasonable likelihood that the '295 claims asserted against Netlist would be found invalid based on multiple combinations of prior art references that had not been considered in the original examination of the patent, and thus ordered reexamination of the '295 patent. Simultaneously, the USPTO issued an Office Action rejecting all of Smart Modular's asserted claims against Netlist as invalid based on those multiple combinations of prior art references. Netlist believes that at least one material prior art reference was purposely withheld by Smart Modular from the USPTO. In addition to denying Smart Modular's motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court granted Netlist's motion to stay the litigation pending the results of the reexamination.
"In the lawsuit, Netlist contends that Smart Modular has misled the market and the public in several ways, which we have detailed in our filings with the Court. The Court's decision in our favor serves as yet another affirmation of the strength of our industry-leading technology and the investments we have made to bring it to market," said Netlist President and CEO, C.K. Hong.
SmartMod's '295 patent has had an even more checkered past compared to Netlist's '912. That patent has already been negated by the examiner after seeing prior art. It only had 6 claims remaining. Go read the court documents on the decision to stay the case.
Tommy, you don't have to ask FUDsters anything, their answer will always be negative. '912 should not be one of the integral patents involved with the Hybrid Memory of Hypervault
Agree, board FUDster is just aping book words, pretending, did the same with the OCZ at Seeking Alpha. Anything that would be considered positive is spun around 180 degrees every time, every hour of the day. That tells you all you need to know, that is not normal behavior.
The money from Samsung does not 'still remain a mystery' They used the sweetheart loan from Samsung to buy out that "Funding Co" (Fortress Inv. group) loan that had much more stringent terms. They got a much better line of credit deal-terms from Silicon Valley Bank as well. I still think you are playing a baffled long prone to the sway of non stop FUD, you can't be legitimately invested here.
Tommy, use your head. If all of these patents were meaningless, why would all these companies be spending time at the USPTO trying to nullify them all, asking for re-exams over 9+ years? If they didn't matter, IPHI, SanDisk, SmartMOD etc wouldn't be worrying about it all.
Also, during the aftermath of the SmartMod '295 rejection, they commented "Netlist has steadily invested in and grown its intellectual property, which now includes five separate patent families. These patent families include 33 issued patents and more than 35 US and foreign pending patent applications in the areas of high performance and high density memory subsystems and hybrid memory technologies"
They have a lot of patents, the '912 won't impact the many others involved in the SanDisk case. As they commented in 2012, "None of our current or pipeline products rely on any single patent for protection and commercialization." as did the SmartMod '295 patent at that time.
MOBL needs $62M revenue with their 82% margins to cover current R&D and SG&A spending, they have yet to show any sustained revenue growth, hovering around the $33-$43M range for several quarters now. From Q1 2015, revs were $33, 34, 38, 43, 38 Losing $80M + the past two years and starting out with a $20M loss in Q1. Their CC was tepid for Q2, yet they did guide cash flow positive by Q4, not sure how they do that without cutting spending.