"Often it will be wise for the district court to determine whether it in fact would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose. But a motion may present complex issues that require extensive litigation and that may either be mooted or be presented in a different context by decision of the issues raised on appeal. In such circumstances the district court may prefer to state that 'the motion raises a substantial issue', and to state the reasons why it prefers to decide ONLY if the court of appeals agrees that it would be useful to decide the motion BEFORE decision of the pending appeal. The district court is not bound to grant the motion after stating that 'the motion raises a substantial issue'; further proceedings on remand may show that the motion ought not to be granted."
Tommy, the Judge had two choices, to grant them the motion or to raise a substantial issue. She didn't grant them the motion because she differs from the jury. Raise a substantial issue opens the door to keeping the injunction in place, the other choice does not.
the Court issues this indicative ruling that Diablo’s anticipated motion raises a substantial issue. Rule 62.1.(a)(3), she is saying that she isn't granting their motion because it needs further review, and that further review might show that the injunction should remain.
I think Needham was shell-shocked, just their vibe, disbelief. Injunction can still remain and licensing can still happen with the patent case coming up.
A "substantial issue" should lead to "further proceedings which may indicate that the motion ought not to be granted."
Look up Rule 62.1 (a)(3), The district court is not bound to grant the motion (to dissolve injunction) after stating that the motion raises a substantial issue; further proceedings on remand may show that the motion ought not to be granted.
captainodestin, April 22nd, 4:13-cv-05889-YGR - Netlist, Inc v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc
Their latest 10Q, $4,077,000 term loan less current portion. I don't think they have accessed any further loan tranches from FIG as of today. And there isn't $12M beyond FIG that I see.
Today was a trade secret case and a contract breach case. April is the patent infringing case... USPTO protected three Netlist patents (twice), you really only need one, as we saw with SmartMOD filing an injunction against Netlist with only one patent. They failed. Their patent was fraudulent.