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.
lol !!! i forgot all about that guy. i guess he went to a good rehab or something........but yeah i'd like to listen to him again he really got into it man, ya know !!!
$NLST Just filed in Samsung293 case awaiting trial date & 463—won and awaiting a ruling on Netlist ongoing royalty.
"Plaintiff Netlist submits this notice informing the Court of the unanimous jury verdict entered in Netlist v. Samsung No. 20-cv-993-MCS-ADS. A copy of the jury verdict is attached as Exhibit A. On May 17, 2024, following a four-day trial before the Honorable Mark C. Scarsi, a jury in the Central District of California found that: (1) Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) “agreed to supply NAND and DRAM products to Netlist without limitation to the parties’ NVDIMM-P joint development project on Netlist’s request at a competitive price;” and (2) Samsung materially breached Section 6.2 of the Joint Development and License Agreement (“JDLA”). Ex. A at 3. There is no dispute that Netlist’s termination of the JDLA was effective in light of the material breach. CDCA Action, Dkt. 186 (Summary Judgment Order) at 18 (“Netlist Complied with the Termination Term”)."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_573479632.png
SilviaJ
6:35 PM
$NLST As most of the people that have been here awhile, we know that NLST always had a number of technologies. And NLST has even surprised many of us with how important their technology has become.
At first, we were hoping for recognition in the LRDIMM market. But it was a small sliver of the DRAM market. Yet as many of us saw the potential of their NVDIMM technology grow, some thought it might turn into the holy grail of faster and denser memory. And maybe even a new memory technology (like NVDIMM-p or HyperVault).
But the big, elusive prey we had our sights on was Google's NDA and subsequent violation of that agreement. Google stole our technology....we wanted blood. They had violated our trust and became dominant (in part) because of our intellectual property.
But honestly, we never envisioned that our technology would go from specialized product to something ubiquitous in the memory market (cont). ????????
https://stocktwits.com/SilviaJ/message/573479041
NLST PART-2 Then Samsung closed with the theme "what is more likely?"... that the narrative is as Netlist asserts or Samsung—supply limited and for joint development.
Netlist got a rebuttal closing where Sheasby took it to another level… just perfect! It was the rebuttal where he kept repeating loudly about crooked timber, how nefarious and devious Samsung was. Essentially showed them to be liars in business dealings and during this trial.
Few other interesting things:
-Sheasby said/showed that Samsung threatened to fire employees if they supplied Netlist, made them lie to Netlist.
-Netlist initially asked for 105 million.
-Samsung was threatened because it was infringing Netlist patents and wanted JDLA to avoid liability they claimed, needed the agreement for protection.
-methodically unpacked the case against Samsung and completely disproved their narrative.
-had Chuck and few other employees/witnesses stand up while Sheasby pointed out their contributions, sacrifices, and integrity.
Stokd 5:18 PM $NLST PART-1 Some color and impressions:
Sheasby used many exhibits in closing while pointing out the way:
-Samsung execs spoke of & treated Netlist.
-exchanges and interplay between Netlist/Samsung execs & their biz dealings.
-20yrs of innovation Netlist would not give away for 8mill in NRE fees.
-exhibit with logos of about 25 companies Netlist lost as customers due to Samsung chocking supply.
-proposed versions of JDLA and $ Netlist asked for, with supply being a major factor in negotiations by taking less money in exchange for a guarantee.
Sheasby spoke/is passionate—Rob is spot on about him—watching his opening/closing arguments (caught close) illuminate how he resonates with a jury/humans, appeals to sensibilities/emotions. It was theatrics as you can feel his disdain by the way he delivered… magic, easy to get hooked!
He really is the Ace... money well spent. My sense was that it didn’t matter what Samsung’s attorney said, it pales in the way Sheasby masterfully did his thing.
NLST Per last years settled lawsuit with Samsung, 7.3 million in Samsung HBM products were sold netting Netlist 122,000,000.00 in damages.
That is $16.71 per unit. Chuck said on the conference call last year that HBM is in the top of the first inning (baseball analogy for being really really early) of the HBM product life cycle.
He also said on the conference call that the settlement numbers would be representative of future licensing going forward.
Paintains its market share in this industry, that will mean they will sell 53,582,000 units in 2029. Multiply that by $16.71 per unit, it will net (pun intended) Netlist in 2029 a staggering $895,355,220 just from Samsung.
Samsung is estimated to have a 40% share of this market.
If Netlist can get (being conservative) just 80% of the market (currently they are the only game in town and having a relationship already with SK Hynix which is the biggest player in HBM) then we could be looking at Yearly revenue for Netlist of $1,790,710,440 for just this one product type.
With 235M shares available that is a $7.6 Gross earnings per share for just HBM. Estimating a 30 PE (industry average) and minimal overhead, we are looking at $228/share if they only sold this one item.
All this for $1.62 a share?!!! This is a great time to be a NLST investor.
i like the way this guy thinks lol !!! https://stocktwits.com/NLSTstonk/message/573476182
the only way you'll get their immediate attention is with an injunction. otherwise its business as usual for the scumbags.
ok you talked me into pre!!!
I wonder now that boc was in favor of Netlist if Samsung will appeal??? I mean now more than ever they need a lic. seems maybe they would just pay off nlst and get the lic or is that wishful thinking.
i'd sell it all if i could get 50 on monday !!!
lol !!! none, except the pink clown with the kim jung dong hair cut. upper right hand corner is the translate to english tab!!!
the decision is final and binding on future cases.
https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/2120/us-press-release.html?airportNewsID=b9be6faf-dc5d-4920-9032-bf88d55582ef
NETLIST PREVAILS AGAINST GOOGLE AT THE U.S. FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IRVINE, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 16, 2020 / Netlist, Inc. (OTCQX:NLST) announced that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has affirmed the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision upholding the validity of Netlist's U.S. 7,619,912 (‘912) patent. The ruling came after last week's oral hearing before a three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit and pending an appeal granted by the Supreme Court of the U.S., the decision is final and binding on future cases.
"For ten years Netlist has steadfastly opposed Google's misguided campaign to invalidate the ‘912 patent," said Netlist's CEO, C.K. Hong. "We are very pleased that in the end the appellate court made it clear that the claims of this seminal patent are indeed valid and in so doing, further vindicate our decade-long defense of the company's strategic intellectual property. We will now move to lift the stay in the patent infringement lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA., in order to recover current and past damages related to the ‘912 patent."
In response to Netlist's 2009 complaint, Google first filed its petition for reexamination of the '912 patent in 2010 and was later joined in its effort by Inphi and Smart Modular. On January 31, 2019 PTAB denied Google's request for a rehearing of the PTAB's previous decision upholding the validity of the '912 patent claims. The PTAB's extensive rehearing decision adopted Netlist's positions on the claims and rejected Google's invalidity arguments involving the specific use of rank-selecting signals for rank multiplication.
Netlist believes that the teachings of the '912 patent can be found in various DDR3 and DDR4 server DIMMs (Dual Inline Memory Module) as well as future products that will be produced under the DDR5 server DIMM standards currently being established by the industry.
About Netlist
Netlist provides high-performance SSDs and modular memory subsystems to enterprise customers in diverse industries. The Company's NVMe™ SSD portfolio provides industry-leading performance offered in multiple capacities and form factors. HybriDIMM™, Netlist's next-generation storage class memory product, addresses the growing need for real-time analytics in Big Data applications, in-memory databases, high-performance computing and advanced data storage solutions. Netlist also manufactures a line of specialty and legacy memory products to storage customers, appliance customers, system builders and cloud and datacenter customers. Netlist holds a portfolio of patents in the areas of server memory, hybrid memory, storage class memory, rank multiplication and load reduction. To learn more, visit www.netlist.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are statements other than historical facts and often address future events or Netlist's future performance. Forward-looking statements contained in this news release include statements about Netlist's ability to execute on its strategic initiatives. All forward-looking statements reflect management's present expectations regarding future events and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by any forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and other factors include, among others: risks related to Netlist's plans for its intellectual property, including its strategies for monetizing, licensing, expanding, and defending its patent portfolio; risks associated with patent infringement litigation initiated by Netlist, such as its ongoing proceedings against SK hynix Inc., or by others against Netlist, as well as the costs and unpredictability of any such litigation; risks associated with Netlist's product sales, including the market and demand for products sold by Netlist and its ability to successfully develop and launch new products that are attractive to the market; the success of product, joint development and licensing partnerships; the competitive landscape of Netlist's industry; and general economic, political and market conditions, including quarantines, factory slowdowns or shutdowns, and travel restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. All forward-looking statements reflect management's present assumptions, expectations and beliefs regarding future events and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by any forward-looking statements. These and other risks and uncertainties are described in Netlist's annual report on Form 10-K for its most recently completed fiscal year filed on March 10, 2020, and the other filings it makes with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time, including any subsequently filed quarterly and current reports. In light of these risks, uncertainties and other factors, these forward-looking statements should not be relied on as predictions of future events. These forward-looking statements represent Netlist's assumptions, expectations and beliefs only as of the date they are made, and except as required by law, Netlist undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements for any reason.
For more information, please contact:
Investors/Media
The Plunkett Group
Mike Smargiassi/Sharon Oh
NLST@theplunkettgroup.com
(212) 739-6729
SOURCE: Netlist, Inc. via EQS Newswire
View source version on accesswire.com:
https://www.accesswire.com/594039/Netlist-Prevails-against-Google-at-the-US-Federal-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals
Behind the case: How Netlist beat Samsung in $303m judgment
https://www.managingip.com/article/2bmb4r70a8uaewk04v8cg/behind-the-case-how-netlist-beat-samsung-in-303m-judgment
i cant answer that. but i want 6bux plus. principal and profit. let the rest ride.
i just read this twice, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=uOqk7iXM6HfcZ1TMUxoReZfGNjx32v98Wbkr1-0F2ptBOfL8Dm91pKs
if this scumbag ex micrap lead attorney, https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_573457995.png
doesnt reverse the 912 decision, CAFC will.
this will be HUGE !!! when over ruled. this time i got the HUGE part correct. if everything in that ''PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW'' was taken into consideration in the first place and the umpteenth time, it would of passed with flying colors as it has for the past 10 years or so. it will pass unanimously once the higher court gets ahold of it, no doubt in my mind.
As 100lbstriper has outlined, the PTAB ruling of the of the 912 (claim 16) patent is an important one to have the CAFC overrule. It was already affirmed in the Google case by both the PTAB (twice) and the CAFC (once). But somehow, Micron got the PTAB to review it AGAIN, and the incredibly called it not patentable.
Also, the 060 and the 160 patents (dealing with HBM Chips I believe) are important ones for Netlist going forward. The CAFC should overrule the PTAB on those.
NLST Nice 🔥 Starting process to reverse PTAB's claim16 invalidation by Director or then CAFC.
Netlist's—REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW—of PTAB decision on claim 16 of 912 ptnt.
Part of Intro—rest in link below:
"The Board’s final written decision presents important issues of law and policy related to the recognition of priority dates for patents challenged in inter partes review. Director Review is necessary to clarify that the Board must consider evidence of how skilled artisans would understand priority-document disclosures, as well as to clarify evidentiary burdens in priority disputes. The Board wrongly ignored the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art “POSITA” at the time of invention when it denied claim 16 the benefit of “the ’244 provisional” priority date because that application does not expressly recite two specific words “bank address” appearing in claim 16. This error fatally undermines the Board’s obviousness determination..."
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=uOqk7iXM6HfcZ1TMUxoReZfGNjx32v98Wbkr1-0F2ptBOfL8Dm91pKs
"Samsung Electronics violated contract with Netlist"...U.S. jury verdict
https://blog.naver.com/newswave1229/223450410380
gm, for one the 912, and everything you see in this chart that they are appealing....... https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2024/5/6/mloatstokd_05062024.png
just so you know kathy vidal was micraps lead lawyer before she became head of ptab. cafc will overturn her puppet circus.
NLST Here's the verdict from today. https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_573440845.jpg
NLST docs dropping galore... 993...... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
NLST Keep in mind that Judge Gilstrap will be preciding over the Micron case that's starting on Monday. Micron has never had a license. They can't be happy after todays ruling.
He also precided over the Samsung $303 million dollar win last year. Well, he's been waiting on the Samsung verdict that came out today in Los Angeles. He's also been waiting on ruling about the future royalties on that same case since December 1, 2023 when all the objections, replies and sur replies were finally in his hands. Remember that the Judge Gilstrap decided to limit the time frame to roughly less than two years on the $303 million dollar judgement. Today we find out Samsung breached the contract materially. It was a 5 year contract that ended before the two years of damages that were awarded. Just saying'. Im including the ruling from LAST YEARS RULING against Samsung for you new people and a ew other goodies. These docs ARE NOT FROM TODAYS RULING.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_573436561.jpeg
whole thread........... https://stocktwits.com/Durango24k/message/573436561
doc 552 in the 993 May 17, 2024 Main Document Receipt for Release of Exhibits to Counsel upon Verdict/Judgment at Trial (G-38)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (8:20-cv-00993)
District Court, C.D. California
551 May 17, 2024 Main Document Jury Trial - Completed
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
Stokd $NLST FYI—writer of article is unaware or hasn't factored Netlist 303mil win over Samsung in 463 case... Samsung is unlicensed!
'Netlist Triumphs Over Samsung in Breach of Contract Case'
"In a decisive verdict announced on Friday, a Los Angeles-based federal jury has sided with chipmaker Netlist, identifying a material breach of contract by tech giant Samsung. This breach involved Samsung halting the supply of essential memory products that were under contract with Netlist."
"The case adds a new chapter in the ongoing multi-jurisdictional patent dispute involving the two companies."
"By establishing that a material breach occurred, Netlist reinforces its position within the larger patent conflict with Samsung."
"A legal victory of this nature, even without immediate financial compensation, can offer several potential advantages to Netlist. It supports Netlist’s reputational standing as a company capable of defending its legal rights against a larger industry player."
https://smartphonemagazine.nl/en/2024/05/17/netlist-triumphs-over-samsung-in-breach-of-contract-case/
NLST 🔥NEWS JUST OUT!!!🔥 'BREAKING: Calif. Jury Finds Samsung Breached Contract With Netlist'
"A Los Angeles federal jury found on Friday that Samsung materially breached its contract with chipmaker Netlist by cutting off its supply of crucial memory products, delivering a significant win for Netlist in its multi-jurisdictional patent fight with Samsung even though no monetary damages were at stake."
https://www.law360.com/articles/1838582
sorry i dont have access
very nice !!! waiting for details!!!
today should be the final day, stay hopeful !!
nice!!
Back
Stokd
5m
$NLST Jury worked through lunch and have a verdict…
WE WON!!! 🔥🔥🔥
Jury agreed with Netlist interpretation of Sec 6.2 and breach was meterial.
Bullish
10
1
67
Back
Stokd
5m
$NLST Jury worked through lunch and have a verdict…
WE WON!!! 🔥🔥🔥
Jury agreed with Netlist interpretation of Sec 6.2 and breach was meterial.
Bullish
10
1
67
have a great wkend everyone monday is going to be awsome
you aint seen nothing yet. 
|
Followers
|
307
|
Posters
|
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
3
|
Posts (Total)
|
25982
|
|
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
