with the parties agreeing on a schedule for remaining claim construction briefing, and the matter is set for a case management conference March 3, 2022.
In parallel, Micron filed requests to bring Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings against three of the four asserted patents: U.S. Patents 8,301,833, 9,854,035, and 10,268,608. As of the reporting date, the PTAB has not made a decision to institute any of these IPR requests.
Samsung Litigations
On May 28, 2020, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for Samsung’s breach of the parties’ JDLA. On July 22, 2020, Netlist amended its complaint to seek a Declaratory Judgment that it properly terminated the JDLA in light of Samsung’s material breaches. On October 14, 2021, the Court entered summary judgment in Netlist’s favor and confirmed Netlist properly terminated the JDLA as of July 15, 2020. On February 15, 2022, the Court entered a Final Judgment in favor of Netlist on each of its three claims, and confirmed conclusively that all licenses granted under the JDLA were terminated. On February 25, 2022, Samsung filed a Notice of Appeal, and the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Time Schedule Order on February 28, 2022 setting Samsung’s deadline to file an opening appeal brief as June 6, 2022.
On October 15, 2021, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“DDE”), requesting in relevant part that the Delaware District Court declare that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912, 9,858,218, 10,217,523, 10,474,595, 10,860,506, 10,949,339, and 11,016,918. As of the reporting date, Samsung seeks leave to add U.S. Pat. 11,232,054 (issued Jan. 25, 2022) to the list. Netlist believes Samsung’s claims levied in the DDE action meritless, and the relief Samsung requests unjustified. As of the reporting date, Netlist filed a motion seeking dismissal of Samsung’s DDE complaint, and an opposition contesting the inclusion of U.S. Pat. 11,232,054 as part of a second amended complaint filing.
On November 19, 2021, Samsung filed IPR proceedings contesting the invalidity of U.S. Patents 9,858,218, 10,474,595, and 10,217,523. Netlist filed its initial responses to Samsung’s petitions on February 18, 2022 contesting the institution of any IPR on the grounds propounded. As of the reporting date, the PTAB has not yet made decision to institute any of these IPR requests. On February 17, 2022, Samsung filed a separate IPR request contesting the invalidity of only claim 16 within Netlist’s U.S. Patent 7,619,912. As of the reporting date, the PTAB has not yet issued a filing date for their latest challenge.
On December 20, 2021, Netlist filed for a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:21-cv-463) under US Pat. No. 10,860,506; US Pat. No. 10,949,339; & US Pat. No. 11,016,918. As of the reporting date, no schedule has been set for this action.
Other Contingent Obligations
In the ordinary course of our business, we have made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which we may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include, among others: (i) intellectual property indemnities to our customers and licensees in connection with the use, sale and/or license of our products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on our negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities to SVB pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by the applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; and (vi) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from our use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, may be indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments we could be obligated to make. Historically, we have not been obligated to make