Good angle, Delia, we know that Netlist often posted of the potential for NAND/DRAM supply chain problems in the 10Q, that should change now
I doubt it, IPHI would likely have to compensate Netlist some, and that could be part of the reason that Samsung embraced Netlist, knowing what IPHI might have to pony up
IPHI is linked with Samsung, so with Samsung making a new alliance with Netlist, they could put the screws to IPHI.
Samsung became a 5% owner on the public IPO, "Thirty-six percent of the company's 2009 revenue is attributable to Samsung, and 17 percent is attributable to Micron." They moved forward with LRDIMMs with Samsung. So, one would think that Samsung would probably want to be friends with the owner of the I.P. rather than the ones who are infringing on the IP. There is the possibility that the patent infringement could include the Samsungs and Hynixs LRDIMMs. It just makes you wonder if any HyperVault negotiations could result from this patent infringing scenario, I would guess Samsung makes more sense than Inphi in a partnering scenario.
In this way, Samsung and the other memory module makers may be liable for the sale of infringing product (complete LRDIMM memory modules).
Payment of damages could be limited to Inphi, but could be expanded to memory module makers who have used the LRDIMM “iMB” buffer chipset for profit – since Netlist manufactures not just buffer chipsets, but also makes complete memory modules
Inphi employed patent reexams as a dilatory strategy to stay Netlist vs. Inphi. When this case resumes, Inphi will have very little to stand on.
Inphi’s “iMB” buffer chipset is used by memory module makers like Samsung and Hynix to construct LRDIMM memory modules. However, Inphi has very little IP in this area" from 2012