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.
I hate to say it, but I'm starting to chalk it up as a loser.
this type of thinking is excaly what they are trying to accomplish (imho) by keeping the price low and going lower, the way I see it we are closer than ever for our payday.
Stokd
9:19 PM
$NLST I thought her answer in the below image was pretty clear... they did barrage her as usual, but this time Chandler got it as well.
The issue of expression and language barrier—with respect to judges—can't be enough of a factor if Sheasby/Chuck have confidence in her. These are oral arguments after everything has already been argued back and forth through briefs with demonstratives/exhibits.
Not to diminish the importance of orals and good performance, but based on the line of questioning and substance, it seems the judges wanted to explore any holes they can find searching for something to invalidate with. Question is, can Anita/Netlist present enough where PTAB/judges can't find a way to justify a decision of unpatentability.
Anyways, I'll leave that alone and just say it's anyones guess, we're all prepared for the worst while already looking past the PTAB.
I can relate to DuffelChad's moments of frustration, but it was while watching Anita, not reading the transcript.😂
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568194088.png
GoodTidings
8:13 PM
$NLST By the way this is very interesting!!!
"Reposting my response to another poster who wrote to his Senator…. Senator Dick Durbin
Good for you…sent below to Senator Padilla…..fyi Vidal was sworn in April 2022.
Dear Senator Padilla
Attached is court document showing that even after Kathi Vidal was appointed Director of the USPTO in April 2022, she was still with William and Strawn, counsel for Micron in a patent infringement trial Unification Technologies vs Micron in which trial was set to begin June 2022. Sounds like conflict of interest to my ears.
https://www.cadwalader.com/uploads/media/WDTX-6-20-cv-00500-97.pdf
Please write your Senator in the Judiciary Committee and send the attached documents as proof that even after Vidal was appointed she was still listed in the attached documents as counsel for Micron."
robcobb
6:07 PM
$NLST We know that Judge Gilstrap is aware of the PTAB ruling on the 060 and 160 by now.I am anxious to see what his reaction will be since those patents were ruled valid and willfully infringed by a jury in his court against Samsung , and upheld by Judge Gilstrap after a bench trial last year.There were expert witnesses knowledgeable of how the patents work that testified to the validity of the patents ,which is higher standard of evidence than what the PTAB uses. I think if I was Judge Gilstrap knowing the PTAB judges already knew of his prior rulings , I would be very insulted! Let’s see what he does in the coming days.Should be very interesting times in the upcoming days!
thread.... https://stocktwits.com/robcobb/message/568178606
Geo_D
5:33 PM
$NLST posted yesterday from USPTO.
A mockery-and-contradiction. Government institution not an example of “In God We Trust”. And previously where CAFC “schooling” PTAB.
Chuck and Jason like the Patrick Henry “give me liberty, or give me death”
SHE NEEDS TO GO TO PRISON..........
https://www.inventorsdigest.com/articles/your-uspto-directors-blog-leap-forward-with-ptabs-help/
CRR4270
4:41 PM
$NLST folks……here is the simple reality :
1) no sitting superior court judge is obliged nor obligated to adhere to any ruling of the executive branch of government. Period. Full stop.
2)if 1) above WAS EVER FALSE? A sitting president could invalidate any ruling of any court at any time. Simply put? THEY CANNOT.
3) Judge Gilstrap WILL consider the conclusions of the PTAB, and give it the proper weight it deserves. It is basically nothing more than ill conceived biased opinion and has nearly no weight as such in the judges court, and he has ample authority and discretion to set it aside.
4) Gilstrap is not going to allow PTABs verdict to undermine his own. On that basis he will uphold his own ruling.
5) Samsung will appeal to the CFAC. Unless the judge abused his discretion? An overturn of Gilstrap on appeal is highly unlikely.
End of story
whatever happens happens is all i can say. but i will say this, whatever decision ptab comes to is not the end and the reaction to the pps is temporary. we can cry all we want in the mean time as i dont care anymore, but i will stay in this till the end.
Stokd
12:09 PM
$NLST Current state of things.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568123765.png
lol!!, thx
naaahhh your our main man all the post and reposts are greatly appreciated.
Stokd
6m
$NLST The transcript of the 912/claim 16 IPR Oral Argument was just released, and in anticipation of the FWD (Final Written Decision) to come any day, figure it's worth a post if anyone is interested. This is the one where the judges actually interrupted and challenged Samsung attorney Chandler quite a bit—which in prior Orals was strictly reserved for Netlist.
Who knows, maybe the PTAB can't avoid looking biased and incompetent if they were to invalidate claim 16, and after the 060 & 160 negative results, perhaps they let 912/claim 16 stand. I'm not expecting it, but am I nuts to think we have a chance... optimism mixed with realism. Regardless of PTAB decision, I definitely believe the CFAC will reconcile and get this one right... at the least.
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=mINOqZM5IJRhAMuR0j2m_kIiffJy5zkj123Z0VfjRWnZVdQOSdy8wkY
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568120538.png
our main man is still stamping a clown on every post.
Case 2:22-cv-00203-JRG-RSP Document 499 Filed 04/01/24
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.215248/gov.uscourts.txed.215248.499.0.pdf
DEFENDANTS’ THIRD NOTICE OF DETERMINATIONS
INVALIDATING PATENTS-IN-SUIT
What happened to our Main man???
I certianly know how you feel but we all know its being minipulated and that sometime in the future it will move north again. I know everyday watching it
sink drives me carzy also. We just have to keep the faith.
Yup. It has always been a risky gamble. Not for the faint hearted.
People in Netlist have a decision on whether or not to stay in it.
For me? It's not hard. I believe they will prevail. I'm still buying.
Good luck.
I have another buy order in for 1K shares @ $1.30. Don't know if it will hit but it's good for 60 days. I hope it does but then again, I hope it doesn't.
I agree and our country seems to be getting worse, both parties.
Just bought another 1K at $1.45. Down goes my average - a little.
From ChatGPT
"When a party issues a "notice of compliance" in the context of a patent infringement suit, it generally refers to a notice sent by the defendant to the plaintiff informing the plaintiff that it believes that its product or activity at issue does not infringe the patents in dispute. This notice is usually accompanied by a detailed explanation of why the defendant believes that it is not infringing the patents.
The purpose of this notice is to allow both parties to clearly understand each other's positions and, in some cases, to explore possible out-of-court settlements. In certain legal systems, issuing a notice of compliance may have specific legal implications, such as establishing a potential defense should the case proceed to trial."
This is nothing new. Samsung has claimed this many times before and it is the foundation of all their appeals to the PTAB.
Yes, it is simply another step needed to get the idea of "prior art" in front of the jury, before the trial actually starts.
Case 2:22-cv-00293-JRG Document 698 Filed 03/29/24
Samsung's Prior Art Notification
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.698.0.pdf
According to some, Prior art notifications are often filed in patent suits, sometimes just before a settlement agreement is reached.
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas 698
Mar 29, 2024
Main Document
Notice (Other) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861664/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294)
District Court, E.D. Texas 78
Mar 29, 2024
Main Document
Notice (Other) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?order_by=desc
yeah...... what he said..........
Bowlsketball
54m
$NLST I'm a long-time reader and first time poster. I have been invested in Netlist for few years. I know the last few months have been a slog with regards to the share price, but I am feeling real good about what is in store for the next couple months:
- Micron trial starting at the end of April for the same patents we already won against Samsung
- BOC trial against Samsung starting in May. Scarsi is aware of Samsung's shenanigans and they have put themselves in a hole.
- Gilstrap will release the ongoing royalty payment for the previous Samsung/Netlist trial after the BOC concludes. This will be huge and could provide much-needed relief to Netlist's balance sheet
Along with these three items, I expect revenue for the 1st quarter to be in the $40 - $50 million range based on Gail's comments during the previous earnings call.
I think all of these things will push Netlist's stock price to a minimum of $4 with potential to go to $10 - $15.
Go Netlist!
Stokd
2:24 PM
$NLST Just look at the image... what a travesty!!!
"In 91.8% of petitions, PTAB management did not assign three APJs with the correct educational background and experience to panels. That is an incredible number and shows that the PTAB has no expertise at all, let alone the agency expertise of the USPTO."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567805892.png
Stokd
2:18 PM
$NLST Nice find! It's why CAFC matters.
-"The PTAB is an appalling failure, invalidating 84% of the patents it fully adjudicates, thereby unleashing massive predatory infringement of small entity patents by huge corporations."
-"but what is their experience in the field? Applying the belief that a law degree coupled with technical or scientific education somehow provides USPTO agency expertise is a bridge too far and disrespectful to inventors."
-"Most APJs have little to no work experience in the field of their degree. Generally, they get their undergrad and go straight to law school. Yet, even without experience in the field, it is their technical or scientific degree alone that qualifies them to adjudicate the validity of our nation’s most important patented inventions."
-"Each PTAB tribunal consists of three APJs. You might assume it is imperative that all three would, at the very least, have a degree in the patented technology. This is not the case in 91.8% of PTAB petitions."
https://innovationgadfly.com/hopelessly-inexperienced-ptab-judges-are-destroying-u-s-innovation/
Stokd
1:35 PM
$NLST Regarding the letter posted today that was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing the nomination of Vidal for USPTO Director... around the same time another letter was sent in opposition — (1st pg in pic & link for rest) "We are inventors..." --- "Together we hold more 7,000 patents covering a wide range of important fields including AI, IoT, 5G, power generation, energy storage, environment, materials, transportation, and biotechnology. However, we are struggling to compete ever since the USPTO has been shaped and controlled by corporate interests under the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). In particular, the USPTO has shifted its focus from promoting innovation to revoking previously approved patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). As big tech and China advances, U.S inventors are increasingly blocked from competing by our very own patent office, which has been heavily politicized and influenced by the trillion-dollar corporations."
https://usinventor.org/wp-content/uploads/Kathi-Vidal-Letter-from-Inventors.pdf
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567803037.png
NLST at least this gives us some hope that the Court of Appeals will see our pahtents much differently than at "The Kangaroo Court" known as the PTAB. https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567797831.png
$NLST Check out this letter dated 1/5/22 from https://prosperousamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/220105-USPTO-nominee-ltr.pdf They new what Vidal would do as the Director of the USPTO. I urge everyone to file SEC complaints at https://www.sec.gov/oiea/Complaint.html. This corruption must be exposed. We can't let them get away with this!!!
FrankFromYahoo
3:01 AM
$NLST Just an example! Look at the ongoing claim 16/912 IPR. Samsung did nothing else than argue that claim 16 is based on (a mere) combination of two prior art elements, from the fact that NLST argues that these two references are not eligible (because not published before the priority date). This CAFC judgement definitely reduces/eliminates the margin of the PTAB to invalidate a patent based on obviousness resulting from the combination of two or more prior art elements. Petitioner and PTAB must find additional hard fact argument. Not enough anymore: the mere existence of two or more prior art elements.
|
Followers
|
307
|
Posters
|
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
1
|
Posts (Total)
|
25994
|
|
Created
|
05/14/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
| Moderators papaphilip gdog 100lbStriper Jetmek_03052 eyeownu 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.
AI
