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.
Still pretty light volume. Wait until the Netlist wins the BOC case. I'll bet then you'll some heavy volume.
Clown boy must have taken the day off.
some pretty large buys coming in, i assume covering. 3k 5k
this is all that counts..........Either way, Netlist wins.
Just read all the testimony in the comments. Great read. I cannot help but think that any Jury listening to it would agree that Samsung broke the contract and intentionally STIFFED Netlist. Either that or the Jury would feel that the contract was so ambiguous that it should just be thrown out.
Either way, Netlist wins.
LOTS OF NEWS CAME OUT last night over day 2 of trial. we're crushing it, hope the jury crush's them, and we are winning........... verdict friday
robcobb
6:25 AM
$NLST After reading the Law-360 articles, I wish whoever wrote those articles would be at the upcoming Micron trial, I could just sit back and enjoy the trial without having to focus on taking notes. I kinda think that person had the transcript of what took place to give that kind of detail. I will take notes and give my best account of what takes place especially the high points,but I am afraid it will fall short of the Law-360 articles,I know my limitations! Hopefully I can give a good enough account of what takes place to give everyone a good account of the big picture of the trial. Me and Prime 311 have communicated and he will be there Tuesday through Thursday he has obligations on the other two days. I will be there all five days and am especially interested in reporting the final day verdict! We shall see soon!
NLST “Netlist’s projected revenues went from $300m annually to negative growth within a few years”
“Netlist lost over $1b in sales”
many investors still don't know today that netlist is a sleeping giant, there's no point in looking for the wrong data, hong here contains the most delicate information and the Samsung case of 2023 confirms what it says.
Netlist lost over $ billion in sales because of Samsung, sooner or later Samsung will pay billions of $ in damages. I hope that this case brings to light the darkness of Samsung and above all that Netlist can take criminal action against them!!!
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_573116540.png
NLST If the jury agrees that Samsung tried to intentionally bankrupt Netlist, it could be a ticking time bomb in Google's case. Samsung had no reason to bankrupt Nlst, Samsung had plenty of resellers at the time. The terms were all roughly the same. Why would they care who resells their products? But at the time Google already knew it was losing the case in California. And Google was known to be Samsung's biggest customer at the time. If you could pull up the correspondence between Google and Samsung at the time, a lot of things would fall into place.
https://stocktwits.com/NikithosTwits/message/573110417
Netlist: “Samsung intentionally manipulates parts supply chain”...Suit filed in U.S. court
“Samsung’s attempt to intentionally worsen Netlist’s competitiveness”
https://www.g-enews.com/ko-kr/news/article/news_all/202405160448554611e7e8286d56_1/article.html
NLST Day 2 - BOC trial report
Part 1 (more in the comments) https://www.law360.com/articles/1837704/ex-samsung-exec-called-netlist-leaders-morons-jury-hears
May 15, 2024, 10:06 PM EDT
A former sales executive for Samsung testified Wednesday to a California federal jury that he made fun of Netlist executives in an email to his boss as they were repeatedly trying to secure product deliveries, calling them "morons" who didn't understand that "nobody likes or wants them as a customer."
Neal Knuth, who left Samsung last year, testified on the second day of the trial in which Netlist Inc. is accusing Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. of breaching a contract that required Samsung to supply it with crucial NAND and DRAM memory parts. When Samsung broke the deal it caused Netlist's business to crater, and Samsung did it intentionally to cause harm, Netlist alleges.
the rest is here............
https://stocktwits.com/FrankFromYahoo/message/573108239
NLST Article on day 2 of BOC trial.
'Samsung Ex-Executive Mocked Netlist Executives in Email'
"In a stunning revelation, a previous Samsung sales executive admitted in court to making derogatory remarks about Netlist executives in communication with his supervisor. The California federal jury heard on Wednesday how the former employee disparaged the Netlist team amid ongoing negotiations over product deliveries."
"The executive, speaking under oath, described Netlist’s executives as inept, using the term “morons” in an email suggesting that their presence was unwelcome in the customer community."
"This testimony throws a stark light on the inner workings of business negotiations and relationships, particularly the challenge Netlist faced in its attempts to secure Samsung as a partnering supplier."
https://smartphonemagazine.nl/en/2024/05/16/samsung-ex-executive-mocked-netlist-executives-in-email/
Ex-Samsung Exec Called Netlist Leaders 'Morons,' Jury Hears
https://www.law360.co.uk/articles/1837704/ex-samsung-exec-called-netlist-leaders-morons-jury-hears
NLST it’s getting warm over at Kathy’s office…
https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/05/15/tillis-issa-kiley-ask-vidal-investigate-issues-raised-patent-examiner-reddit-thread/id=176533/
NLST Judge Desai seem the smarter of all 3 appeal judge ...
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55209/22-55209-2023-10-17.html
NLST interesting headline. I wonder what the rest of the article says!
https://www.law360.com/amp/articles/1837286
that was nothing more than scamsung spouting off about how they want things to go. just the usual bs we're all accustomed to. yes its good. it just shows there still trying to hide as much evidence as possible.
tell me all this is good lol
Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (8:20-cv-00993)
District Court, C.D. California
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
541
May 15, 2024
MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exclude Live Testimony of Mr. Hyun-Ki Ji 537 filed by Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.. (Snyder, Darin) (Entered: 05/15/2024)
Main Document
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.541.0.pdf
$NLST TIME TO PAY UP SAMSCUM
By Craig Clough; Law360 (May 14, 2024, 10:34 PM EDT) -- An attorney for Netlist told a California federal jury Tuesday during opening statements in its breach of contract suit against Samsung that "secret documents" will show that the technology giant's executives gleefully sought to crush Netlist by cutting off its supply of crucial computer memory products. Jason G. Sheasby of Irell & Manella LLP, who represents chipmaker Netlist, told the jury that Netlist Inc. reached a deal in 2015 to license its 190 computer technology patents to Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in exchange for Samsung supplying it with NAND and DRAM memory products at a competitive price.
The deal was a huge breakthrough for Netlist, as Samsung completely dominates the worldwide supply of NAND and DRAM products, which Netlist desperately needed for its business, and Samsung had refused for a time to sell the parts to Netlist, Sheasby said. Netlist is a small company, with about 120 employees, while Samsung boasts over 30,000 workers, according to Sheasby. But about 18 months into the deal, Samsung arbitrarily said it would no longer honor the agreement and significantly slowed down its deliveries, Sheasby said. "When we complained, they cut it to zero, the record will show, because they already had access to our patents, and no longer needed to keep their commitment under the agreement," Sheasby said. He also said Samsung "knew it was infringing" Netlist's patents, and that the jury will see the "secret records in which they candidly admit this."
The jury will also see emails and communications in which Samsung executives called Netlist "morons," and that they were "laughing out loud" with "glee" at the disruptions Samsung was causing for Netlist, Sheasby said. Samsung not only stole Netlist's patents that were licensed under the deal, but it also shared the technology with other companies, Sheasby said. Samsung executives also "openly admitted to governmental agencies that they wanted access to Netlist's patents so they could use them without permission," Sheasby said. Darin W. Snyder of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, who represents Samsung, told the jury that the deal between the companies did not guarantee Netlist to an unlimited supply of NAND and DRAM products, and that the slowdown Netlist experienced in deliveries was a result of worldwide disruptions in the market, which is a common occurrence."
Snyder likened the shortage in 2017 and 2018 to the toilet paper shortage experienced at retail stores during the outbreak of COVID-19, suggesting that there simply wasn't enough product available on the market to meet Netlist's orders on time, even though Samsung prioritized Netlist and did its best to keep the supplies coming. Snyder also said that Samsung "never would promise an unlimited supply" due to "frequent shortages in the memory product market." He also said the deal did not include a minimum requirement of deliveries or delivery obligations. Neither attorney told the jury how much money in potential damages is at stake in the trial. The trial is just one arm of a yearslong legal battle between the two companies, which has also seen action in Texas federal court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
A jury in December 2021 determined Netlist was owed no damages, but in October, a split Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Scarsi's summary judgment finding. The majority found the contract was ambiguous and remanded it to the district court for a finding on whether extrinsic evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the agreement's meaning, which ultimately resulted in the current trial. Netlist won a $303 million verdict in the Eastern District of Texas in 2023 after a jury found Samsung infringed five of Netlist's patents, although the PTAB has since found those patents are invalid. Chun K. Hong, the president, CEO and co-founder of Netlist, took the stand Tuesday as the trial's first witness and said the companies were previously at odds before striking the 2015 deal and bringing "global peace" where they agreed to "lay down their weapons." "A year and a half into the agreement, they reverted back to their ways as if we didn't have a contract," Hong said.
In the instant action, Netlist filed suit against Samsung in 2020, alleging the two companies entered a joint development and license agreement on Nov. 12, 2015, which allowed Samsung to supply NAND and DRAM products to Netlist on Netlist's request at a competitive price and to pay Netlist $8 million in engineering fees. Beginning in 2017, Samsung declined to fulfill all of Netlist's forecasts, requests and orders for NAND and DRAM products, putting some on backlog and rejecting others, according to the suit. On May 27, 2020, Netlist sent a letter claiming Samsung breached the agreement, and on July 15, 2020, sent another letter terminating the deal. Both parties eventually moved for summary judgment, and U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi granted partial summary judgment in favor of Netlist's claims in 2021 but held that Netlist can't recover consequential damages and that any damages must be determined by a jury.
Samsung started to significantly reduce its NAND and DRAM deliveries in 2017, with Netlist asking for $100 million worth but only receiving $21 million, Hong said. The deal with Samsung allowed Netlist to significantly expand its operations, but after Samsung pulled back on deliveries Netlist eventually lost all of its new customers, he said. Netlist initially projected that it would reasonably reach $300 million in annual revenue within a few years under the Samsung deal, but due to the deliveries evaporating, they ended up in the red, Hong said. Snyder was still cross-examining Hong when the proceedings ended for the day, but during that time, Snyder tried to establish that Netlist was a company in financial distress when it reached the 2015 deal, as Hong said it had only been profitable for one year over the last two-plus decades. The trial is scheduled to resume Thursday morning.
its all possible, and we're gonna find out soon enough. i'm trying not to get excited incase something stupid happens. like i said i just want a verdict and lets take it from there. in 2 weeks if all goes as set we should be sitting pretty and moving forward with a clearer point of view.
Indeed. That trial MAY be the one that shakes things up.
Netlist will surely win this trial and it will be worth quite a bit. Micron has no "JDLA" or any other type of patent agreement to fall back on, and (as you point out) the patents have been upheld by the PTAB.
I wonder if Hong will dangle a little carrot in Microns face. Offer them a deal on the damages (or patent license agreements) if they give any up any dirt they have on Samsung and Google. Let's not forget that Micron was thrown under the bus by both Samsung and Google not too long ago.
NLST More drama in a late day/night filing about this Mr Ji being able to testify that Samsung has never enetered into a similar agreement with any other company. During court today the two parties met and conferred and couldnt come to an agreement about excluding his testimony the said issue. So Sheasy is filing to have it handle ASAP. This is the same Mr Ji that wa talking about earlier in a filing, the same Mr Ji Samsung was hiding from Netlist and we come to find out today he is going to be in the courtroom TODAY, Wednesday the 15th. Drama, drama, drama.
https://stocktwits.com/Durango24k/message/572930094
NLST I am sure, nobody here forgot, but still I remind:
Next week, Monday 20 ! our trial against Micron starts in East Texas under judge Gilstrap on the following 3 patents:
- 215 and 417: both successor patents of parental patent 314 which has been challenged by Micron. One of the rare occasions when even the PTAB did not find it "obvious".... PTAB FWD found: all claims patentable! PTAB FWD for 215 and 417 are due in August. Favourable (like it was for the patental patent), Micron definetly lost with zero chance of appeals (against PTAB and the EDTX judgement coming next week).
- 912 (which was found valid several times by the PTAB and confirmed even by the CAFC; but lately found "invalid" by another PTAB jury because of "obviousness" based on documents which actually were not even permissible (no publication prior the priority date according to Sheasby.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_572940212.png
https://stocktwits.com/FrankFromYahoo/message/572929158
NLST just one of the “secret documents“, Samsung opposed to allow Netlist showing them to the jury. But apparently judge Scarsi allowed it ! Isn’t this great ?!
Not that this was needed to win the trial, but it will add (extrinsic evidence as requested by the appellate court).
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_572927563.jpeg
NLST Full text Reporting from Trial:
Part 1 (more in comments) https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1837286/-secret-docs-show-samsung-breached-netlist-deal-jury-told
By Craig Clough; Law360 (May 14, 2024, 10:34 PM EDT) -- An attorney for Netlist told a California federal jury Tuesday during opening statements in its breach of contract suit against Samsung that "secret documents" will show that the technology giant's executives gleefully sought to crush Netlist by cutting off its supply of crucial computer memory products.
Jason G. Sheasby of Irell & Manella LLP, who represents chipmaker Netlist, told the jury that Netlist Inc. reached a deal in 2015 to license its 190 computer technology patents to Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in exchange for Samsung supplying it with NAND and DRAM memory products at a competitive price.
Part 2:
"The deal was a huge breakthrough for Netlist, as Samsung completely dominates the worldwide supply of NAND and DRAM products, which Netlist desperately needed for its business, and Samsung had refused for a time to sell the parts to Netlist, Sheasby said. Netlist is a small company, with about 120 employees, while Samsung boasts over 30,000 workers, according to Sheasby.
But about 18 months into the deal, Samsung arbitrarily said it would no longer honor the agreement and significantly slowed down its deliveries, Sheasby said.
"When we complained, they cut it to zero, the record will show, because they already had access to our patents, and no longer needed to keep their commitment under the agreement," Sheasby said. He also said Samsung "knew it was infringing" Netlist's patents, and that the jury will see the "secret records in which they candidly admit this."
Part 3:
"The jury will also see emails and communications in which Samsung executives called Netlist "morons," and that they were "laughing out loud" with "glee" at the disruptions Samsung was causing for Netlist, Sheasby said.
Samsung not only stole Netlist's patents that were licensed under the deal, but it also shared the technology with other companies, Sheasby said.
Samsung executives also "openly admitted to governmental agencies that they wanted access to Netlist's patents so they could use them without permission," Sheasby said.
Darin W. Snyder of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, who represents Samsung, told the jury that the deal between the companies did not guarantee Netlist to an unlimited supply of NAND and DRAM products, and that the slowdown Netlist experienced in deliveries was a result of worldwide disruptions in the market, which is a common occurrence."
Part 4
"Snyder likened the shortage in 2017 and 2018 to the toilet paper shortage experienced at retail stores during the outbreak of COVID-19, suggesting that there simply wasn't enough product available on the market to meet Netlist's orders on time, even though Samsung prioritized Netlist and did its best to keep the supplies coming.
Snyder also said that Samsung "never would promise an unlimited supply" due to "frequent shortages in the memory product market." He also said the deal did not include a minimum requirement of deliveries or delivery obligations.
Neither attorney told the jury how much money in potential damages is at stake in the trial.
The trial is just one arm of a yearslong legal battle between the two companies, which has also seen action in Texas federal court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."
Part 5:
In the instant action, Netlist filed suit against Samsung in 2020, alleging the two companies entered a joint development and license agreement on Nov. 12, 2015, which allowed Samsung to supply NAND and DRAM products to Netlist on Netlist's request at a competitive price and to pay Netlist $8 million in engineering fees.
Beginning in 2017, Samsung declined to fulfill all of Netlist's forecasts, requests and orders for NAND and DRAM products, putting some on backlog and rejecting others, according to the suit.
On May 27, 2020, Netlist sent a letter claiming Samsung breached the agreement, and on July 15, 2020, sent another letter terminating the deal.
Both parties eventually moved for summary judgment, and U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi granted partial summary judgment in favor of Netlist's claims in 2021 but held that Netlist can't recover consequential damages and that any damages must be determined by a jury.
Part 6:
A jury in December 2021 determined Netlist was owed no damages, but in October, a split Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Scarsi's summary judgment finding. The majority found the contract was ambiguous and remanded it to the district court for a finding on whether extrinsic evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the agreement's meaning, which ultimately resulted in the current trial.
Netlist won a $303 million verdict in the Eastern District of Texas in 2023 after a jury found Samsung infringed five of Netlist's patents, although the PTAB has since found those patents are invalid.
Chun K. Hong, the president, CEO and co-founder of Netlist, took the stand Tuesday as the trial's first witness and said the companies were previously at odds before striking the 2015 deal and bringing "global peace" where they agreed to "lay down their weapons."
"A year and a half into the agreement, they reverted back to their ways as if we didn't have a contract," Hong said.
Part 7
Samsung started to significantly reduce its NAND and DRAM deliveries in 2017, with Netlist asking for $100 million worth but only receiving $21 million, Hong said. The deal with Samsung allowed Netlist to significantly expand its operations, but after Samsung pulled back on deliveries Netlist eventually lost all of its new customers, he said.
Netlist initially projected that it would reasonably reach $300 million in annual revenue within a few years under the Samsung deal, but due to the deliveries evaporating, they ended up in the red, Hong said.
Snyder was still cross-examining Hong when the proceedings ended for the day, but during that time, Snyder tried to establish that Netlist was a company in financial distress when it reached the 2015 deal, as Hong said it had only been profitable for one year over the last two-plus decades.
The trial is scheduled to resume Thursday morning.
Part 8
Netlist is represented by Jason G. Sheasby, Michael Harbour, A. Matthew Ashley and Lisa S. Glasser of Irell & Manella LLP.
Samsung is represented by Darin W. Snyder, Marc F. Feinstein and Amy R. Lucas of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
NLST What did Mr Ji have to say in the past? See the bottom highlighted part.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_572921652.jpg
NLST Today Sheasby filed this in the Scarsi Court because now Samsung wants to sneak this guy into court on Wednesday for live testimony, while trying to exclude Netlist. Netlist has been trying for months to subpoena this guy, Samsung still playing games, but Sheasby is on it. See all the docs in comments.
https://stocktwits.com/Durango24k/message/572921124
NLST I saw this today and didnt post it, but look at the bottom Sheasby had filed a Ex Parte Application to Enforce Trial Subpoenas because Samsung was not providing the Korean information so they could be served. They only gave a local Southern California address. These are two important witnesses. It appears from what I see at the bottom, today the motion was denied. See my next post.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_572921111.jpg
https://stocktwits.com/Durango24k/message/572921111
Here's Doc 106 where they said they were going to file, but they didnt according to Gilstrap https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_572914135.jpg
yes i see, pardon me for being thorough lol !!! peace my brother, not trying to out do you........
I only included the first few paragraphs to let readers know what the filing was about.
I put the link in there so people could read the whole thing.
Case 2:22-cv-00294-JRG Document 120 Filed 05/14/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 6961
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Micron to file an updated Notice of Final
Election of Invalidity Theories, Prior Art References/Combinations, and Equitable Defenses
stating in no uncertain terms whether it will be asserting any invalidity defenses or equitable
defenses and, if so, what defenses it will be asserting. Micron shall file this updated Notice no later
than Thursday, May 16, at 5:00 p.m. CST.
signed by strap 5-14-24 but it wont lt me copy that part......
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216365/gov.uscourts.txed.216365.120.0.pdf
agreed.
Case 2:22-cv-00294-JRG Document 120 Filed 05/14/24
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216365/gov.uscourts.txed.216365.120.0.pdf
The Court issues this Order sua sponte. On April 22, 2024, Micron filed its Notice of Final Election of Invalidity Theories, Prior Art References/Combinations, and Equitable Defenses (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 106.) In the Notice, Micron stated that it “provide[s] the following list of invalidity theories, prior art references and combinations, and equitable defenses that they continue to assert against Netlist, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).” However, Micron did not provide a list within or attached to its Notice.
Instead, Micron stipulated that “based on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s institution of IPR2023-00203 for U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 and IPR2023-01141 for U.S. Patent No. 11,093,417, Micron will no longer pursue invalidity defenses in this action (C.A. No. 2:22-CV-00294-JRG) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPRs are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPRs.”
This was posted by Stokd on ST. I don't think it's been posted here.
https://smartphonemagazine.nl/en/2024/05/15/netlist-inc-accuses-samsung-of-malicious-supply-cut-in-court/#google_vignette
Good read Striper. It really makes you wonder about the motives of the other two Judges on the panel who had to add their own interpretation of the contract which they pulled out of thin air, and which was totally contrary to the plain language of the contract. Too much corruption in our judicial system I would say!
Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294)
District Court, E.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?order_by=desc
NLST Here is a link to the October 17, 2023, 9th Circuit BOC Appeal decision by the 3 Judges, Smith, Amon and Desai (the dissenting Judge.) It's worth the time to read, especially the dissenting Judges opinion. All this led to todays trial. https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_572891816.jpg
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2023/10/17/22-55209.pdf
lol !!! they can't even reverse engineer what their stealing.
Samsung Has Reportedly Failed To Pass HBM3E Memory Qualification Tests Set By NVIDIA
https://wccftech.com/samsung-has-reportedly-failed-to-pass-hbm3e-memory-qualification-tests-set-by-nvidia/
gotta be getting close.....
hows that dog feel'n ? i trust your keeping him healthy......
lets see if these shorts start buying back if we win the boc and micrap next week, some one said 9 days on average vol. we win the 2 and vol should be above average in that time frame !!! almost forgot, strap will be tacking on rates after boc, hmmm..
just getting back, yes i would love to see us pull one of those moves, we'd be falling out our chairs !!!
|
Followers
|
307
|
Posters
|
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
25979
|
|
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
