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.”5 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
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.)
Why would you say that? The whole point of going with the custom designed HyperVault is to drive down costs.
UlltraDIMM customers are still not going to be happy about the product still being under patent litigation, willful infringing is not cool/
No, the appeals sent it back to the District court to decide the fate of the injunction. That is why it is temporary.
The Judge has to be the one to decide, will she stand by her very clear ruling or not?
"Over the next couple weeks, we will ask the court to correct the verdict as to our breach of contract claims based on the court's very clear ruling as to the meaning of the contract which resulted in the preliminary injunction."
The Judge has strongly backed Netlist, so it is her reputation at stake.
I thought the injunction hearing commences Apr 3, and the hearing is the 10th of April... "while the District Court considers the company's request to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The court has given Netlist until March 31, 2015 to respond." The Judge in the case will be the one to decide the state of the injunction, and she is also presiding over the patent case.
"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.