Premise
Sandisk has long emphasized the strength of its patent portfolio. Yet those claims are hard to square against a recent loss at the ITC and an at-best odd settlement last month in a Texas court.

Discussion
Almost two months ago, Sandisk was dealt a surprising blow when the ITC ruled that STMicro's NOR and NAND products do not in fact infringe any valid Sandisk patents. Sandisk had brought suit at the ITC and asked that STMicro's products be barred from importation; but the ALJ was not impressed, ultimately finding one patent invalid and the rest not infringed. Later this week, the deadline for appealing that adverse decision will pass, meaning that Sandisk is going to just accept the loss rather than fighting for a second look.

One might have thought that the decision not to appeal was in part based on some other litigation -- say a case that was going well for Sandisk and one that Sandisk could use, and soon, to implicitly reassure investors that its patents are in general valid and important. But, instead, the next-biggest news out of Sandisk's litigation team this month was that Sandisk had decided to walk away from a patent fight that had been underway in the Texas courts. There, Sandisk had again asserted infringement against STMicro; and, this time, Sandisk walked away in exchange for a promise from STMicro that STMicro will not assert certain STMicro patents against Sandisk. (Not exactly a validation of the superiority of Sandisk's portfolio.)

Sandisk has additional cases underway, to be sure, including a relatively important one in California. But still, recent events have to give any reader pause. If Sandisk's hand-picked patents failed at the ITC, and Sandisk had to walk away from its long-running Texas case with a relatively palty win at best, then how are we to be confident that Sandisk's patents really are strong? And, more importantly, will Sandisk's licensees see all this as weakness and use it to push for lower royalty rates when various contracts come up for renewal in the months ahead?