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 realize that but they can negotiate a buyout/merger sometimes you need deeper pockets to get to the end goal! Sometimes you can’t let your pride stand in your way! Remember all public traded companies are supposed to have their shareholders in mind! Can NetList make it alone maybe and maybe not. Will definitely have to issue more shares but time will tell.
The process isn't over yet. The repercussions are accumulating. As far as buyout, NLST had a poison pill to prevent that. Hong doesn't want to settle for pennies on the dollar. The goal is to be recognized by the market for the innovations they have developed and to be justly and fairly compensated for their use.
What good is a patent if these big tech companies can just steal it and use it with no repercussions!! If NetList patents are so great then why hasn’t anyone just come in and bought out NetList! I think there is a big dog watching in the shadows with deep pockets who will soon be coming out of the shadows!! Anyone have an idea who this big dog is??
US law firms smell opportunity as Supreme Court guts agency powers https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-law-firms-smell-opportunity-supreme-court-guts-agency-powers-2024-07-03/
tokd $NLST Rather than focus on and reference Netlist's claim 16/912 Demonstrative from IPR Orals—which I did with screenshots yesterday—it's more prudent to look at Netlist's Response in the IPR itself, which is more substantive and thorough.
Keep in mind Netlist's Dir Revw Rqst is also full of detail and specifics.
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=x-DVSxYRv2Jos0r-jQS1FsUccPX3leFQX1bOUgwO8gdqMGaidfyuZ7I
And what Netlist claimed in Dir Rev Rq email to Dir Vidal—"The Board committed several errors that led it to deny the challenged patent claim the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications."—bottom pic below.
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=PVz-7ZaqgWMwedaAwOuY00K_2jrt3JokV3pg4haJSwWqsAbggWAn2iE
PG 54 of Netlist's Response in claim 16/912 IPR—"ON THE FULL TRIAL RECORD, PETITIONER FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE OVER GROUND 3"—where you can see there are 2 aspects—"A. Ellsberry is Not a “printed publication” Under §311(b)—"B. Ellsberry is Not Prior Art to the ’912 Patent".
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=5r3Eg3AQgo6CUXvJPZ2G45M2rpZtamV64nh1ug7_Boj9-nFW-g8xWLU
From 912 patent itself in top pic below—"Related U.S. ApplicationData"
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/f3/5b/756a8ca3d9ab11/US7619912.pdf
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578549530.png
Stokd
2:39 PM
$NLST @FrankFromYahoo I'll try to clarify:
1)You're conflating different aspects of Samsung's Ground 3 that Netlist is arguing against.
2)Please read the article I posted yesterday on 'printed publication', which also provides case law and explains 'secret prior art'.
3)Which is a separate issue/aspect than "prior art" relating to when claim 16 was disclosed.
4)3 dates—priority / filing / critical—are fluid depending on circumstance, and complex.
5)Lynk Labs v Samsung appeal will address whether prior-filed, later-published patent applications, are "printed publications" and are a permitted basis for IPRs.
6)I'd warn using ChatGPT as a sole basis for understanding and opinion. Thereby limiting yourself because ChatGPT doesn't know or understand the multidimensional aspects of Netlist's situation/IPR/patent/appeal, nor the cases and issues currently being raised and addressed through appeals that can have implications on other cases and patent litigation going forward.
7)Let it unfold/play out https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578547926.png
TOMKiLA $NLST Huge news again.
SK Hynix expects to hit an accumulated revenue of mid-US$10 billion in high-bandwidth memory (HBM) sales by the end of 2024.
Should sk fight against netlist like samsung and micron or should sk Hynix find a deal with netlist for all the patents and with a 1% of ip licenses of revenues ? 😌
It’s not easy to talk about these things but the sk Hynix HBM revenues are increasing exponentially and ddr5 will follow the HBM trend with low margin.
We are talking about the hugest opportunity for netlist to change the rule
April 2026, the end of sk Hynix deal!
In 2026 I think sk will show between $20 and 25 b HBM revenues and all dram revenues should be over $100 b
https://stocktwits.com/TOMKiLA/message/578542189
love this guys idea!!! ..............''$NLST happy 4th fellow Americans. May the winds of justice prevail. NLST long with Hong.
Game plan:
Samsung hang’s themselves on the 912
Another 800 million in the bag.
Hong Uplists
Google falls while institutional investors money comes rolling in.
SP $100+''
ahh thx you, trying to read everything lol off to a party enjoy the fourth
won is the name of their currency, as dollar is the name of ours. if the article doesnt do the conversion. just pull up a currency translator on the internet and you can see how many won equals how many dollars.
It compares with an operating profit of 670 billion won in second quarter of last year.
what do they mean by won?
scum is going to owe us some serious jing.......... AI frenzy expected to have boosted Samsung Q2 profit 13-fold
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-frenzy-expected-boosted-samsung-223433638.html
NLST In the interest of others curiosity and following this Lynk Labs vs Samsung case due to its implications on our claim 16/912 situation and incoming CAFC appeal, here is some info on the case, docket, and current status.
- Case # 23-2346
- Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Amicus Briefs were filed in support of Samsung by those with shared interests disguised as "patent owner friendly" organizations....and some in support of Lynk Labs, including from VLSI.
- Appeal is currently at the stage of awaiting scheduling of Oral Argument — "Notice from Intervenor Katherine K. Vidal regarding conflicts with oral argument" — yes "INTERVENOR" as Silvia pointed out, Vidal intervened/threw herself in the appeal.
- In the same pic below you can see the name of the Lynk Labs attorney and author—Stephen Schreiner—who wrote the article on the subject I posted earlier today.
- With Oral Argument being the last step of appeal, decision comes next, there's no set timeline.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578522233.png
Here is more of the docket from Pacer....
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578522482.png
https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578522482
$NLST Where I'm goin with "timing" in my previous post, during the claim 16/912 IPR, Netlist knew and included the fact that the "printed publication" issue is at the CAFC, and obviously prefers it comes at least prior our CAFC appeal oral argument. Any delays since, regardless how redundant—Dir Revw Rq—helped us with that.
VLSI has an appeal currently, where they asked CAFC to wait for Lynk Labs-Samsung ruling. Big implications for VLSI if CAFC rules for Lynk Labs, and does so prior to VLSI's CAFC conclusion.
"The Federal Circuit won't freeze an appeal of an administrative ruling invalidating a patent that a Texas jury said Intel infringed to the tune of $1.5 billion. That damages award to patent owner VLSI was vacated by the CAFC in a separate appeal in Dec 2023, but the court instructed a federal judge in Waco, Texas, to hold a fresh trial on damages. But if the validity decision from the PTAB is upheld on appeal before the damages trial reaches a final judgment, that would wipe..."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578520028.png
https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578520028
Stokd $NLST To sum it up, here's what we know:
- We're in good hands!
- Netlist legal team is on it — as shown in the demonstrative from oral arguments in IPR of claim 16/912 ptnt (posted in comments of previous post).
- N legal team is not uncertain nor confused about the strength and legitimacy of their position pertaining to what constitutes "printed publication" / "prior art" / "priority date", and when claim 16 was first "disclosed in '244 provisional application (July 2004) and '436 patent (March 2005)".
- N legal team is aware of and follows relevant cases/issues/challenges to current law as they make their way though the process. And the CAFC decision in Lynk Labs v Samsung appeal will come well before oral arguments in our claim 16/912 IPR CAFC appeal—which hasn't been filed yet, as we await the decision on Director Review Request first.
- N legal team considers timing and implications, employing strategies which translate to if/when Netlist does/does not act on maters or other aspects.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578518439.png
https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578518439
Netlist's Demonstrative for Oral Argument in IPR of claim 16 of 912 ptnt.
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=iV6bZqJApakGi2fiTj84DgvMiHwMmkHmcr0cp-EGZ4acs15KC4matgw
Stokd $NLST Just adding to conversation—from Netlist's Demonstrative.
All of Petitioners' Grounds Are Deficient
-Ellsberry is not printed publication (similar
issue now before the Federal Circuit)
-Ellsberry is not Prior Art: Ellsberry was filed
Jun 1, 2005. Claim 16 disclosed in 244
provisional application (July 2004) and 436
patent (Mar 2005)
-No teaching or suggestion of "the command
signal [being] transmitted to only one DDR
memory device at a time" when there are
multiple devices per rank
Ellsberry Is Not a Patent or Printed Publication under 311(b)
-Priority date for the claim: no later than July 1, 2005
-Ellsberry is not a patent
-Ellsberry was published on 12/7/2006, after 7/1/2005
Issue Is Currently Being Briefed at Federal Circuit (Lynk Labs v Samsung)
-Whether the Board erred in determining that the Martin reference, a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application that could only be prior art under pre AIA35§102(e)(1), can be applied in an IP as a "printed publication"under 35
U.S.C.§311(b)
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578515790.png
https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578515790
SilviaJ $NLST Well, as we have been discussing, there IS objective evidence that Ellsberry is NOT prior art.
"Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of non-obviousness other than to respond to Petitioner’s assertion of evidence of “simultaneous invention.”
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ellsberry teaches or suggests each limitation of claim 16 of the ’912 patent and is unpatentable as obvious over Ellsberry.
But, but, but....
Samsung contends that the priority dates:
’912 patent is July 1, 2005.
Ellsberry is June 1, 2005
Samsung contends that Ellsberry constitutes prior art to claim 16 of the ’912 patent.
Hmmmmm, the only problem? Ellsberry was "secret prior art"
It wasn't published until Dec 7, 2006.
Yet, NLST filed for the '912 patent in 2005.
The inventions were simultaneous.
https://stocktwits.com/SilviaJ/message/578514164
$NLST for the micron case in the western district of Texas. Joint status report due Sept 17th to keep the court informed of the IPRs
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578511034.jpg
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63002044/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
NLST shareholders can take pride in the fact that scamsung employees dont like big scum either.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/samsung-electronics-union-south-korea-declares-general-strike-4448896
maybe thats why they cant reverse engineer product for nvda correctly ??? lol !!! hahhaaha
lol !!! i know your busy. i'm just jealous. i can only follow one at a time!!!
Hey I may miss a few but I'm trading full time and looking at thousands of stocks a wk. I already said I was sorry lol
ahhh sorry anyhow you can't have enough NLST enjoy tomorrow..
Stokd $NLST Had this good/thorough piece on the subject saved since Jan, written by the attorney representing LynkLab in their CAFC appeal vs Samsung & Vidal.
"But what about an application that was filed before the filing date of the challenged patent, but was not published until after the filing date? That reference is not a prior art “printed publication” because it was not publicly available at the time the application for the patent was filed. This kind of “secret prior art” should not be available as the basis for an IPR."
"The patent statute confirms that IPRs should not be instituted based on patent applications that published after the priority date of the challenged patent but the PTAB has permitted IPRs to be based on prior-filed, later-published patent applications."
"Case Law Confirms That Prior-Filed, Later-Published Applications Are Not Prior Art ‘Printed Publications’"
"The PTAB’s Position on the Admissibility of Published Applications in IPRs Is Incorrect"
https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/01/15/patent-applications-published-priority-date-challenged-patent-not-printed-publications-iprs/id=171874/
lol !!! this is because we know your not reading all my posts!!!
whole thread........... https://stocktwits.com/SilviaJ/message/578499606
SilviaJ
45m
$NLST Director Vidal seems to have taken a creative angle in the Samsung vs Lynk Labs case....which could affect NLST.
She literally inserted herself into that CAFC appeal.
Here is what she says: This Court should hold that § 102(e)(1) published patent applications may be relied upon in inter partes review proceedings because they fall within the scope of “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).
Notice how she says "fall within the scope........" in 35 U.S.C. 311(b). If you go to the actual statute, there is no 102(e)(1) in the current law.
The 102 (e)(1) is actually part of the pre America Invents Act statute.
But when Congress created inter partes reviews as part of the America Invents Act, it imposed a critical limit: IPRs may be based “ONLY” on “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. §311(b).
Fortunately, her determination on what the court "should do" will hold no weight due to Chevron Deference.
993...just a reminder.............
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.588.0.pdf
Stokd
Jun 20, 2024 8:20 PM
$NLST That was quick...parties filed their — STIPULATION REGARDING POST-TRIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE — in the BOC case.
"Following the jury’s return of a verdict at the conclusion of the recent trial, the Court asked the parties to “confer on a schedule for post-trial motions.” Trial Tr. at 886:14-17. The parties hereby agree to the following schedule:"
Link to full doc below--- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.588.0.pdf
TOMKiLA
49m
$NLST 5 new grant patents and one patent application in 2024. not bad for a small company, I hope that the new team of engineers will churn out dozens of patents in the coming years.
Good luck voting! 50 years on voting proxy and 20 y3ears with Fidelity have had such a problem attempting to vote. control number in Fidelity 4 digets longet than the vote. Calling for assistance of little help. Requested mailing of proxy in 3 accounts to vote. AST no help. Hoefulkyn these clitches will be worked out shortly!
NLST..... https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/3210/us-sec-filing.html?format=html&secFilingId=3945254a-360e-485b-81e1-64eb34a0278c&shortDesc=Proxy%20Statement%20%28definitive%29
June 28, 2024
Dear Netlist Stockholder:
On behalf of the board of directors (the “Board of Directors”), it is our pleasure to invite you to the 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Netlist, Inc. (“Annual Meeting”), which will be held on Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Time, at the UCI Research Park, Cypress Room, 5301 California, Irvine, California 92617.
The Annual Meeting will include a discussion of and voting on the matters described in the Notice of 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement, and a question-answer session.
At the Annual Meeting, one person will be elected to our Board of Directors and we will ask the stockholders to ratify the appointment of Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for our fiscal year ending December 28, 2024, as disclosed in this Proxy Statement. The Board of Directors recommends the approval of each of these proposals. Such other business will be transacted as may properly come before the Annual Meeting.
Whether or not you participate in the Annual Meeting, it is important that your shares be represented and voted during the meeting. We urge you to promptly vote and submit your proxy (1) via the Internet, (2) by phone, or (3) if you received your proxy materials by mail, by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed proxy card or voting instruction form in the envelope provided for your convenience.
Thank you for your continued investment in Netlist.
Sincerely,
Graphic
Gail Sasaki
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary
NLST:)$$$ got my email reminding me to vote so what are we voting for with NLST
come on kathi. u need to do the right thing.😉😊
no i was referencing one of your stock plays on your board!
Everyone have a great fouth and see ya'll Friday
well NLST is stagnet money right now. if your up 9828% thats amazing
9828%??????? i agreeeeeeeeee!
If you were playing some of these you could be buying twice as much nlst lol
https://investorshub.advfn.com/Bottom-Swing-Plays-29717
Anything is possible. But if SK is paying for what everyone else is getting for free, they aren't gonna be happy about that. Either the courts will resolve this (eventually) and Netlist, and us as shareholders will get paid handsomely, or if it doesn't go in Netlist's favor then SK will do what all the infringers have done, and stop paying. It's exciting to see them doing great, and I'm so glad we have an agreement with them now, but we're really waiting for the PTAB debacle to get resolved. So much weight on CAFC to make things right.
its possible and we're on working terms with them so i think its a distinct possibility.
Is it possible SK Hynix could end up being our "one trick pony" that propels us all forward? Maybe even if we don't have contracts with the others and receive damages? royalties / ect.. Sk becomes and is striving to become a even bigger player in our market and they pull us forward with them? Can others seeing this as a possibility also?
Vote now! NETLIST, INC. Annual Meeting
NETLIST, INC. 2024 Annual Meeting
Vote by August 13, 2024.
As a shareholder in NETLIST, INC., you have the right to vote in an important election that may affect your investment. Don't miss your chance to make your choice.
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC
Control number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Account number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Meeting date: August 14, 2024
SK Hynix aims to lead HBM Market for AI Chips, invests $75 Billion by 2028 https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20240701VL205/sk-hynix-hbm-demand-ai-chips-2028.html
Stokd $NLST When BOC trial concluded, Samsung wanted discovery from ED, to support their new manufactured theory about Netlist hiding discovery. Of course after losing they have to find something to raise/object.
It stems from Netlist using an exhibit inappropriately during trial, which blindsided Samsung and exposed their lies and contradicted their position.
The judge struck it from the record and instructed the jury to disregard. SInce that doesn't overturn the verdict nor warrant a new trial, Samsung cries, lies, and spins...filing in BOC for a hearing.
Netlist's response completely contradicted Samsung's position, and laid out in detail with specifics, how/why. Samsung filed to lift protective order in ED on June 25—unsealed/redacted version filed today—and Netlist responded in support though contingent.
Netlist's motion is sealed—SEALED MOTION for Contingent Relief from Protective Order by Netlist—but this doc is not and indicates Netlist has the goods and nothing to hide. Game over!
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578403550.png
The bottom part of the doc pictured below⬇️. The app to make docs I pay/pull on Pacer publicly accessible on Courtlistener, is not working again...hit & miss.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578404196.png
https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578403550
NLST here's that new patent mentioned https://patents.justia.com/assignee/netlist-inc
robcobb
5m
$NLST I guess a lot could happen in 11 minutes and that’s all the hearing took yesterday. I have listened to all of Samsungs arguments through the last two years plus.It is hard for me to imagine they got their way with a motion hearing that took only 11 minutes ! I guess we will know pretty soon. I think we are about to find out when I will be witnessing Samsung in the courtroom again. I am starting to get excited again about traveling to Marshall and witnessing justice in the making!Cannot wait till Stokd posts the decision in the motion hearing yesterday ,whatever it is because we know it is still moving forward!
microby patent news!!!
it´s a hot paper, this morning puplished
US 12,026,397
Hybrid memory module having a volatile memory subsystem and a module controller configurable to provide data to accompany externally sourced data strobes to the volatile memory subsystem
If you believe that Netlist will be successful with its own product, then you can buy a share for 1.35 dollars.
The battle for recognition and confirmation of the innovative developments on the DIMM DDR4/DDR5 standard in recent years is still ongoing.
But in the background, the team around CEO Hong is not waiting in the wings! They are testing, soldering, programming, modifying and adjusting. It will be finished! I believe in that!
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578383326.png
https://stocktwits.com/microby/message/578383326
nlst, maybe gail doesnt want shoes no more ???
thx man, i'll be home taking it easy, i dont play amature night anymore !!! nlst baby
Followers
|
305
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
15
|
Posts (Total)
|
25531
|
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/
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |