News 
Market Data 
Discover
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
$NLST got me 1500 cheapies!
Nasty morning or giant head fake and buyer op?
microby
12m
You should know what the content of the Micron complaint is.
Yes, the entire '912 patent with 91 individual patent claims.
But additionally the complete '417 patent, where the language of the '912 is interwoven.
The predecessor of '417 is '314.
fwd '314 - all challenged claims found patentable 😉
Trial starts in a few days
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570000669.png
Looks like the open will be around $1.15.
Stokd
3:29 AM
$NLST If the fear/dip is not bought up by tomorrow's close, it is only IMO because folks are concerned that Gilstrap may stay the 912 case pending appeal. But remember that the 417 patent is also part of the case, and that IPR decision is not due till Aug.
Gilstrap was aware of the possible circumstances when he denied Micron's stay, so I highly doubt he would stay the case because of the 912 PTAB decision. Of course anything is possible, he did reverse his denied stay in 203 case to wait for the 060 & 160 IPR decisions, but especially after that you would think he would be more aware of his intent going forward.
I get it, we've seen enough to warrant caution, but I'll be buying tomorrow while some contemplate and wait for positive signals. I'm in for the long game, and we're going to have many CAFC appeals as big catalysts in our future. After cases come trials, then post trial, then appeals—of judgments/verdicts/trials/IPRs/patents—we're on a long wild ride full of adventure.
NETLIST SCHEDULES FIRST QUARTER 2024 FINANCIAL RESULTS AND CONFERENCE CALL
IRVINE, CA / ACCESSWIRE / April 18, 2024 / Netlist, Inc. (OTCQB:NLST) announced today that it will report its financial results for the first quarter ended March 30, 2024, before 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 25, 2024.
Netlist will host a conference call at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 25, 2024. Netlist encourages participants to pre-register for the conference call. Callers who pre-register will be given a unique PIN to gain immediate access to the call and bypass the live operator. To pre-register, click here.
For those who would like to join the call but have not pre-registered, they can do so by dialing +1 (412) 317-5443 and requesting the "Netlist Conference Call."
A live webcast and archived replay of the call can be accessed in the Investor's section of Netlist's website at www.netlist.com.
About Netlist
Netlist is a leading innovator in memory and storage solutions, pushing the boundaries of technology to deliver unparalleled performance and reliability. With a rich portfolio of patented technologies, Netlist has consistently driven innovation in the field of cutting-edge enterprise memory and storage, empowering businesses and industries to thrive in the digital age. To learn more about Netlist, please visit www.netlist.com.
For more information, please contact:
Mike Smargiassi
The Plunkett Group
NLST@theplunkettgroup.com
(212) 739-6729
SOURCE: Netlist, Inc.
View the original press release on accesswire.com
https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/2100/press-releases.html
Stokd
9m
$NLST The timing and irony of it all... we have entered the twilight zone!
The firm Kathy Vidal left to become Director of USPTO/PTAB—Winston Strawn—is the same firm who represents Micron on all our current infringement cases, as well as at that time Vidal was actually Micron's counsel on our WD-TX case.
Micron's acting lead from Winston Strawn on our current cases is Reuckheim. He along with the firm are defendants in a suit against them alleging copyright infringement of legal briefs by another firm. If you recall, I have followed and reported on that case in the past.
Today, Reuckheim & Winston Strawn settled their copyright case. Of course they did not want to get to discovery or trial where the theft and infringement of the firm and acting lead would be exposed, in the face of representing other infringers in numerous litigation with Netlist.
Also today, PTAB with Vidal's support—after ruling NO RPI—invalidates claim16 which is in our Micron case.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/winston-strawn-settles-copyright-suit-claiming-it-copied-brief
sounds like hes saying the same thing i just did except with a lot more detail.............
Stokd
9:56 PM
$NLST Appreciate the great contributions by many valuable voices on this great board... we've come a long way.
On the topic, something to keep in mind about the process involved for a patent claim to be cancelled—we're far from it.
From article explaining the following:
"A typical IPR where the petitioner prevails includes the following three-step sequence:
1)Unpatentable Decision: PTAB issues a final written decision concluding that the challenged claim has been proven unpatentable with a preponderance of the evidence.
2)Affirmed on Appeal: On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirms that judgment.
3)Certificate of Cancellation: Once the appeal is complete, the USPTO Director then issues a certificate canceling the claim."
Points on:
-"at what point are the claims no longer enforceable?
-"what about infringement that occurred (and lawsuits pending) prior to the cancellation?"
-"arguing that the use of IPRs to prevent infringement lawsuits violate due process."
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/02/cancelling-patent-claim.html
i look at that with a common sense point of view. not that it means anything anymore in this corrupt world. but if a patent was initially granted to a company through their system of bullshit it would have to be upheld until it was legally deemed unpatentable right ?
VERY INTERESTING IF TRUE!
BolliverShagnasty
45m
$NLST I almost forgot one other thing, the court in Delaware is on record in a few cases setting aside rulings at the P tab. It's not just Texas. Remember Samsung lost the breach of contract case and went running to Delaware thinking they had chosen their ideal venue but they only ended up dragging Google with them into 34 claims of patent infringement that have been validated compared to one claim in California.
BolliverShagnasty
49m
$NLST the next important thing to watch for with the 912 patent in my opinion is to see how Google responds. I'm sure there will be a filing in the Google I'm sure there will be a filing in the Google case in California and they will give notice to the court. It's going to be real interesting how that comes to pass because remember they're not supposed to be a real party in interest RPI with Samsung according to the arguments made by Samsung to the P tab. LOL it's going to be real funny how they try to walk that tightrope!
In the meantime, pay attention to what Rob and stoked were telling you today. Also remember that nothing that has been happening in Texas so far had much at all to do with the 912 patent. As Rob stated earlier let's see what judge Gilstrap does! The P tab is Judge Gilstraps piss boy. He's going to fill the chamber pot and make them empty it!
Stokd
8:42 PM
$NLST At least our lead attorney on all our cases (Jason Sheasby) won a huge verdict on a retrial against Samsung today in Gilstrap's court.
"A Texas federal jury on Wednesday said Samsung owes G+ Communications LLC $142 million for infringing two 5G wireless network patents, a huge win on retrial for G+, which was originally awarded less than half of that."
Be careful what you wish for Samsung—who wanted a retrial on the initial 67 million verdict—which now has increased to 142 million. 😂
Next up is our man Sheasby in Gilstrap's court against Micron on Apr 29th... followed by a trial—date to be set—on same patents in the same court against Samsung.
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1826231/texas-jury-hits-samsung-with-142m-loss-in-ip-retrial#
Durango24k
8:39 PM
$NLST The second one 
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569963821.png
Durango24k
8:38 PM
$NLST Two more quick posts, then Im done for the evening. These are meant to be nothing more than thought provoking for the deep divers here, so don't bust my balls! Blame ChatGPT Just going through my desktop and found a few things that made me go hmmm.... A 2nd post to follow.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569963777.png
Durango24k
8:27 PM
$NLST If I remember correctly the image on the left if from Microns own website and the image on the left is from a previous PTAB ruling. It appears they both new what 'RANK' was back then. It's funny how things change, isn't it?
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569963007.png
Durango24k
8:12 PM
$NLST Let's not forget what Netlist' lawyer Jason Sheasby said previously about this PTAB rulling (IPR2022-00615) that came out today.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569961924.png
Stokd
7:29 PM
$NLST This is far from over and the CAFC will reconcile.
Something to add is that in every one of our infringement cases against Micron & Samsung, they argue in defense through their Answer to the Complaint—1st brief of the case—that Netlist failed to comply with its RAND obligation... meaning to license the patents at RAND rates. Though that obligation is based on the patents being standard essential—which later Netlist prevailed through Summary Judgment that they're not standard essential, therefore removing obligation to license at Fair Reasonable And Non Discriminatory terms—which don't apply to infringers, especially the willful.
But the point is that Samsung and Micron pushed and argued for Netlist to license what are now "invalid" patents, at the time Netlist filed the lawsuits. Then when Netlist disagreed that they deserve or are obliged to RAND, the same infringers that wanted to pay for the patents decided all of a sudden to challenge that they are obvious and worthless.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569958377.png
BolliverShagnasty
7:15 PM
$NLST the good news is this is the beginning of the end of the P tab. Netlist will appeal this. We will get different judges when we appeal and they will uphold the previous verdict. This was just an attempt to buy some time for Google and Samsung.
Now for the good news. We have several patents already validated and since the Google case is stayed anyway which is where the majority of the 912 claim is, it doesn't really matter right now. We can focus on the claims that have already been validated, nail down the infringement and the other patents can still be used as Leverage for settlements because at the end of the day all of these infringers know that the federal appeals court will probably reverse some of these rulings if not all. We will see a narrowing of the case in gilstraps court and let's see what the jury Awards! In the meantime judge Gilstrap is the wild card and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him issue a ruling on royalties.
https://stocktwits.com/BolliverShagnasty/message/569957225
very nice, thank you!
yes its mentioned in one of the document filings, or court transcripts, though i dont recall which one. as you know i do read everything but unfortunately i dont keep track of where everything is at nor need too. but i will say one thing from all that i've read pertaining to strap and ptab. straps verbal demeanor loathes what ptab stands for.
Really. Ok. I wasn’t aware he forbid the mentioning of PTAB rulings in court proceedings.
Stokd $NLST The fact that:
- Sk Hynix settled and paid for a license to use Netlist patents—including those invalidated by PTAB.
- Samsung paid for a license to use Netlist patents through the JDLA contact—including those invalidated by PTAB.
- Micron wanted to license Netlist patents at FRAND rates—including those invalidated by PTAB.
- Google was caught using Netlist IP during a random server inspections—which lead to the 912 patent case against them.
- All of the above were using Netlist's IP/technology—infringing for years.
Yet we're supposed to believe that all of Netlist's key and valuable patents that are currently being litigated in District Court against the infringers—912/DDR5(054 & 918)/HBM(060 & 160)—are invalid, unpatentable, and worthless/useless. As if Netlist for 20 years has invented junk, yet was worthy of stealing...YEAH RIGHT! You can't make it make sense because the PTAB and their biased and unqualified Administrative Patent Judges deliberately don't make sense.
Rant over
91 Apr 17, 2024 ORDER granting 86 Motion to Expedite Briefing on Netlist's Motion to Strike Micron's Updated Witness List (Dkt. 85). Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 4/17/2024. (NKL) (Entered: 04/17/2024)
Main Document
Order on Motion to Expedite
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
gilstrap already said ptab is irrelevant in his court room and neither plaintiff or defendant can present a ptab decision to the jury or even him in pre trial.
ptab is bullshit and not part of the legal system.
I wonder if Netlist will have to get the process of Appeals into the CAFC for these PTAB decisions of unpatentable claims, before the trial starts on the 29th?
Because if Samsung or Micron can just make sure the jury is informed during the trial process that the PTAB has proclaimed all these patents as unpatentable? It would certainly make the Jury think twice about pronouncing them guilty of stealing Netlists patents.
But if the CAFC appeal is in place before the trial starts, then it would probably not be allowed in court.
I wonder how the judge will handle this?
Durango24k $NLST During claim construction Google agreed to meaning of rank in the original 2010 case.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569947006.png
mrbiggumsworth $NLST look at @Durango24k he’s provided past documents where Google agreed to the definition of Rank.
Google cannot change or alter. Maybe Samsung can wiggle this rank discrepancy, but Google cannot and Gilstrap+Appeals Court will easily see what Rank is intended to represent and it will showcase the incredible asinine mental gymnastics and blind eye PTAB as useless and predatory.
Durango24k $NLST This is one of the docs from the original Google case that I posted in my previous post, where both parties agreed to these definitions during claim construction. Notice 'Rank" is a GROUP of devices, not one, a GROUP. You 'Rank' things when there is more than one. Duh. PTAB seems to be having a problem with logic. This will be straightened out in court, where normal Judges and juries have a brain.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569945675.png
robcobb $NLST We need to focus on Judge Gilstrap now not the ptab,and what his next move will be! I wonder what Judge Gilstrap is thinking after the ptab has debunked almost all of his and Judge Paynes claim constructions on the patents and jury trial with Samsung where a higher standard of evidence was observed? I know Judge Gilstrap has to put some weight on the ptab decisions but I think he will continue on with the trials and hear from the expert witnesses and the evidence presented,and let the juries decide the fate of Micron and Samsung! I will be there to observe his justice ,because I think it is coming !(IMO).April 29 will be here soon!
it just goes to show you how arrogant you can be when your given permission. gilstrap will along with cafc shoot it down and proceed as normal. once again the only draw back is time. the rest of the week should be interesting. if you have money to play with i wish ya luck. i can only watch....
$NLST just in time! ill be adding more tomorrow thanks to the idiots who run the PTAB ;-D
This has to end badly for the PTAB (I hope). How could the PTAB give their blessing TWICE on the 912 Patent (Claim 16) and the CAFC bless it also - yet call it unpatentable THIS time??
Unbelievable.
i hear ya brother, by the end of the year i'm hoping for positive pps movement based on jury results from the court dates we currently have. maybe we even get lucky to have cafc overturn todays verdict by then as well, if not they still will in their given time frame. fwiw, i'm just glad ptab's decisions arent worth a pile of dog crap in any higher court.
gilstrap vs ptab, choose your side......
if you can call the low or get close to it i know for a fact you'll make money !!!! ptab just slammed us with their bullshit.....
Stokd $NLST Finally released it, and as expected... unpatentable! Enough with the PTAB... finally we can move forward… anchors up, destination trials!
Link to full doc-- https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=QFQQZbR91fF2AE9cFS6M4Altm83Q67-CNFVsTXWTctrP1cetup2ZhWQ
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569935878.png
i'm hoping for a good year end result if not sooner !!
now that guy should have to testify in front of a jury for every case we have against samscum.
they may not be able to testify on netlists behalf on the grounds of settling out of court but i may be talking out my backside on that, but i like the idea.
|
Followers
|
297
|
Posters
|
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
12
|
Posts (Total)
|
22535
|
|
Created
|
05/14/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
| Moderators 100lbStriper Daylas Jetmek_03052 eyeownu Boxsterfan Redoocs | |||
IN HONG WE TRUST....
Created by Sub-Teacher:
Samsung's Expert WItness Quote: 
https://netlist.com/
brings over two decades of high-tech management experience to Netlist. He most recently served as President of Infinilink, a DSL equipment manufacturer, and as executive vice president of Viking Components, Inc. Prior to that, he spent 15 years with LG where he held various senior management positions in the U.S and Korea. Mr. Hong holds an MS in technology management from Pepperdine University and a BS in economics from Virginia Commonwealth University.
