To date, the court has issued procedural rulings governing how the case will proceed, but has not made any determinations on the merits.
Some recent communications have suggested that Sanas has "won." That characterization is incorrect. Describing an early procedural ruling as a "win" reflects a misunderstanding of how these cases are decided. The rulings did not resolve any substantive issue.
Discovery is just starting, the court has not evaluated the underlying evidence, and it has not made any findings regarding:
- the validity of Sanas' patents
- whether Krisp infringes any patents
- the accuracy of Sanas' allegations
The case is now in the discovery phase, where both parties will exchange evidence and the factual record will be developed. Future stages may include claim construction proceedings (where the court interprets patent terms), expert analysis, and potentially summary judgment motions and trial.
Krisp is confident in the strength of its technology, its patent portfolio, and the factual record that will emerge through the legal process.