Jessi Betjemann: So most of that spending, as we mentioned with GBB now 95% is going to be OpEx and that will be all in GBB — all in EDD. And yes — but the operational initiatives as well as predominantly in EDD.
Ric Prentiss: And final question. Any update on the lawsuits, what’s going on, on the patents and the court case, I know you said I think came in lower cost than you thought in the quarter maybe?
Oakleigh Thorne: There’s a lot to update there. So first of all, I just want to repeat, we do not infringe on these patents. So I want to be very clear about that. And I’m also not going to comment on our litigation strategy or the case itself as I don’t want to taint our litigation. But let me go through where things stand. So SmartSky, originally filed a patent suit against us of our own four patents. They’ve just added — they’ve just filed with the court requesting to add two new patents. Those two new patents are essentially additive to existing families of patents that were already part of the suit. So three of those patents, there are six patents and all right now I believe, and three of those patents expire in August of 2025 and the other three expire in 2034 and 2035.
There are two prongs of the litigation right now. One is the original infringement complaint and the other is the request for a temporary injunction, and I’ll just cover each of them. The infringement — I mean — the injunction application, the judge at the presiding judge over the Maine trial, decided against SmartSky on that and did not grant a temporary injunction. They’ve appealed that that’s in the federal district court, and that court can either essentially remand the case back to the original judge, saying that there was no abuse of discretion, which would be the standard that they’d have to apply and then the original judge would have to deal with that and either change his mind or confirm his original denial. If the district court did not find that there was an abuse of discretion then the ruling against SmartSky on the temporary injunction would stand.
The original case, the presiding judge has now scheduled trial for April 25. And like I said before, I do not believe, we do not believe, we infringe. But I want to be clear that if the judge ultimately found in favor of SmartSky, the overwhelming remedy is that there would be some sort of licensing agreement, the SmartSky sort of try to referred in their recent release, there could be a permanent injunction against us to prevent us from selling our 5G product, that would be highly unusual. And I would also note that the patents that are expiring, of course, any decision by the court there would, A, be fairly limited in terms of what the fees might be, because those patents will not be around very long after the case since the trials April 25 and the patents expire in August of 25, and I think that’s about it.
Any follow-up on that Ric?
Ric Prentiss: No, I think that’s clear. We’ll just keep our eyes on it. Have a good time. Look forward to seeing Jessi and Barry down for one final swansong in Orlando next week. Everyone, stay well.
Oakleigh Thorne: Yes, we managed to keep Barry, we hung on to him for two weeks. So that he can attend your conference
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Scott Searle of ROTH.
