% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Amarin Corporation plc Message Board

edvoks 2624 posts  |  Last Activity: 13 hours ago Member since: Mar 6, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    EV3 OEMs?

    by whales_gez 17 hours ago

    "Since NVDIMM adoption is happening simultaneously with the DDR4 production ramp, most of the NVDIMM volume is expected to be DDR4 based"

    "During normal operation, an NVDIMM functions as a regular DDR3 RDIMM. It plugs into a standard
    DDR3 DIMM socket and has JEDEC standard SPD data. Every NVDIMM has its own on-DIMM DDR3
    controller that, when the NVDIMM senses a power failure, immediately copies all data from DRAM into
    flash. When power is restored, the NVDIMM copies the data from flash back into DRAM and normal
    operation resumes with no data loss.

    The NVDIMM uses the HW SAVE# signal to trigger a backup, at which point the NVDIMM’s own DDR3
    controller takes over the DDR3 interface from the host and dumps all DRAM data to flash through either
    side-band signals or the I2C interface. At a backup speed of 128MB/sec, it takes about 10 seconds per
    1GB to either backup or restore the data" From NVDIMM tech brief, SNIA interest group.

  • Reply to

    EV3 OEMs?

    by whales_gez 17 hours ago

    How many NVDIMM qualified servers do you see? Netlist being qualified for servers for the MSFT cloud has been the first big qualification.

  • Reply to

    EV3 OEMs?

    by whales_gez 17 hours ago

    It is based on Hybrid Memory, marrying DRAM with Flash. Netlist is the pioneer there.

  • Reply to

    EV3 OEMs?

    by whales_gez 17 hours ago

    Netlist made NVDIMMS the same way Diablo 'made' UDIMM, they were the first to make them, they have the seminal patents for them

  • Reply to

    EV3 OEMs?

    by whales_gez 17 hours ago

    NVDIMMs are not being adopted widely at this point.

  • Reply to

    EV3 OEMs?

    by whales_gez 17 hours ago

    Netlist owns seminal NVDIMM patents, no other company has produced as many NVDIMMs as Netlist to date. EV3 is a broader based option.

  • Reply to

    CH presentation test

    by riverbankblue Oct 7, 2014 2:20 PM

    Bumping for a refresher on Netlist opportunity, from Craig Hallum last year. I hope they present this year, too.

  • This Court held in its March 10, 2015 Contract Order that having reviewed the actual
    language of the Supply Agreement, "the argument that the Diablo Standard Register (a 'DDR3 Standard register' is 'derivative' of the Netlist Chipset (which contains both RD and ID chips) does not lead logically to the conclusion that Diablo Standard Register could contain both chips."

    Furthermore, this Court held that, "the ability to demonstrate the work
    Diablo performed under the Supply Agreement to a potential customer does not support Diablo's construction of 'Diablo Standard Register' or evidence Diablo's ownership of the intellectual property rights to a 'chipset' or (standard register) with both RD and ID components."

    The Court's ruling was as clear as the contract itself: 'The language of the Supply
    Agreement limits the Diablo Standard Register to the 'register' portion of the Netlist Chipset, and does not mention the 'set of isolation devices' or ID chip portion of the Netlist Chipset defined in section 1.'

    Simply, Diablo was prohibited from such use of the ID Chips, and any such use was a breach of Sections 2, 7, and/or 8 of the Supply Agreement

  • Reply to

    Judge's actions pre-trial

    by edvoks 20 hours ago

    The Judge seems to be a bit scatter-brained if she can't hold tight the logic presented in earlier trial motions and orders. To then allowing Diablo to slide, almost as if she is petty.

  • The Court has now had extensive opportunity to review the terms of the Supply Agreement
    and has found that the relevant provisions and terms of the Supply Agreement are unambiguous. See
    March 10, 2015 Order Regarding Proffers and Extrinsic Evidence Related to Contract Interpretation.
    (Dkt. 386 (“Contract Order”).)

    On January 26, 2015, Diablo submitted its Motions in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence and Testimony. (Dkt. No. 303-9.) Diablo’s second Motion in Limine (“MIL No. 2”) sought to exclude various forms of extrinsic evidence relating to contractual interpretation of the Supply Agreement. (Id. at 6.) In response to this Court’s request in Pretrial Order No. 3, and as discussed further below, the parties submitted proffers and responses regarding any supposedly ambiguous language or terms in the Supply Agreement and the scope of extrinsic
    evidence to be admitted for their interpretation. (Dkt. 361, at 2.)

    Diablo identified five supposedly ambiguous terms in its submissions and contended, among other things, that the “Diablo Standard Register” (to which it had rights) included the ID chips (Dkt. Nos. 369, 376), while Netlist maintained that the Supply Agreement was not ambiguous. (Dkt. Nos. 368, 375.)

    The Court ultimately determined that no party had identified “any terms the Court considers ambiguous” and
    held that consequently neither party could offer extrinsic evidence relating to contract interpretation
    and denied as moot Diablo’s Motion in Limine No. 2 on the grounds that no extrinsic evidence was
    needed to interpret the meaning of the Supply Agreement’s unambiguous terms. (Contract Order, at
    2, 11.) During the trial, the Court reiterated its ruling that extrinsic evidence was not permitted on a
    number of occasions. (See, e.g., Trial Trans. 417:19-19:21.)
    In short, the relevant terms of the Supply Agreement are clear and not reasonably susceptible
    to alternative interpretations

  • "Diablo had no rights whatsoever to use or sell the isolation devices to parties other than
    Netlist or to develop a chip competitive to the Netlist Chipset – regardless of whether the
    DxD/LRD technology in such isolation devices was “physically disabled” or not"

    "Here, there is simply no evidence that, given the entire context of the agreement between Netlist and Diablo, that there is any outstanding ambiguity in the language of the Supply Agreement such that it is reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that Diablo was allowed to use or sell Netlist’s ID chips, whether physically disabled or not."

    So basically, it seems that the Judge agreed with this when she granted the injunction, and she should have granted the first JMOL. Diablo can't parse contract language to say that they could use the chip since they grounded one pin... If the Judge believed that, then she should have never have granted an injunction in the first place. She seems lost, and it doesn't really matter what the jury did, she had the ability to grant the JMOL based on the facts of the case.

  • edvoks edvoks Sep 4, 2015 12:19 AM Flag

    "In pre-trial, the Court found that Diablo's use of the ID chip was a breach of the unambiguous supply agreement. There was no evidence at trial that should cause the Court to reverse that conclusion."

    The jury needed to be instructed that Diablo's use of the ID chip was a breach, already determined by the court. Who is ultimately responsible for making sure the jury hears that instruction?

    Evidence showed they did use the Netlist ID chip. To say they didn't use the chip because they grounded one pin should not be a valid conclusion.

  • edvoks edvoks Sep 3, 2015 1:40 PM Flag

    So she is not qualified to interpret technical contract language and what Diablo gained from using the Netlist chip? How Diablo is parsing language from the contract? I assumed she had a strong sense of the contract language from her injunction decision. How could she not have been so easily swayed by Diablo in the course of pre-trial hearings? A simple matter of grounding one pin? And she over-looked that in her injunction decision? What is wrong with her?

  • edvoks edvoks Sep 3, 2015 12:28 PM Flag

    "NLST attorneys did not press her to "properly instruct the jury", and NLST attorneys assumed she was going to do it"

    That is what the judicial process has become? Did she have authority to instruct the jury via her own discretion? If so, she should have. Was it the burden of Netlist lawyers to instruct the Judge to tell the jury? How could this trivial technicality have any bearing on the outcome of such an important contract law decision? She should know better, Netlist asked her, why did you issue an injunction? It was because she determined the contract was unambiguous. Shouldn't Netlist have assumed that the contract determination was already determined?

    I know in the upcoming OTIV vs TMUS trial, the Judge is instructing the jury that TMUS did violate OTIV patent. That won't be up for a jury to decide.

  • edvoks edvoks Sep 3, 2015 12:15 PM Flag

    Netlist owns seminal patents for Hybrid Memory, NAND-DRAM. The USPTO backs them up. The only thing is that it takes so long for this to run its course.

  • edvoks edvoks Sep 3, 2015 9:08 AM Flag

    What was the intention of Netlist when they put that language in the contract? Why put it in there that Diablo could 'use the chip if they disabled LR and RM? Can that be explained?

  • edvoks edvoks Sep 3, 2015 9:06 AM Flag

    All through pre-trial hearings, the Judge considered arguments and demonstratively sided with Netlist. She granted an injunction and she tossed Diablo's appeal that Badalone said would clear things up and allow them to get to work the next day. It boggles my mind that she could have allowed the case to continue to those lengths if it was all a trivial matter of disabling RM and LR.

    She read the contract much differently in pre-trial, she agreed with Netlist that they couldn't parse the contract language and that it should be read in totality. It is clear that Diablo had an unfair head start based on the improper use of Netlist chip.

    Judge Rogers seems to be unqualified for her position based on her actions.

  • Reply to

    murder complete

    by fhuckfleas Sep 2, 2015 4:12 PM
    edvoks edvoks Sep 2, 2015 4:18 PM Flag

    I don't understand the Judge here. All the focus should be on her, why she granted injunction, why she agreed on the contract interpretation, why she threw out Diablo's appeal earlier in the year, why she allowed the jury to overrule her decision, basically, when they don't have the same technical ability to read contract law. And she is presiding over the upcoming patent case. Is she qualified here?

  • Reply to

    SNIA Flash Memory Summit Conference

    by delia.sherry Aug 12, 2015 12:26 PM
    edvoks edvoks Aug 15, 2015 7:46 PM Flag

    It was said, no new evidence was revealed in the trial that would go against the Judge's ruling for injunction AND her dismissal of their appeal on that ruling for injunction. Twice, the Judge said no, you broke the contract agreement. So we have two things to consider, the Judge's earlier ruling and the jury's decision.

    The jury should never be the one to determine complicated contract law, that is where the Judge should have told the jury that the contract was broken by Diablo, the only question for the jury was, did they use Netlist chips. The judge already deemed that they were Netlist chips, but were they used, and the Judge told them, post trial, "You used them, you used them... I have to deal with that in the context of this verdict"

  • Reply to


    by whales_gez Aug 12, 2015 5:59 PM
    edvoks edvoks Aug 12, 2015 10:11 PM Flag

    EV3 is NVRAM, works in DDR3 and DDR4 based hardware, easy to integrate.
    High speed an endurance of DRAM with the non-volatility of MLC NAND flash gives EV3 a performance advantage over SSDs.

2.35+0.06(+2.62%)Sep 4 4:00 PMEDT