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.
Stokd
4m
$NLST Take a look at my litigation chart below, notice how much else is in play aside the Micron 203 case. The only things impacted by the PTAB at this point are the Micron 203 and Samsung 463 cases... and with the 463 trial unanimous win with patents deemed valid and willfully infringed, we don't need the 203 trial win for the CAFC to reconcile the decisions of District Court and PTAB, because the Samsung 463 case will get to the CAFC first, and results will impact the Micron 203 case.
Active and in play aside the Micron 203 case—with no impact from PTAB:
- Micron 294 trial
- Samsung 293 trial
- Samsung BOC trial
- Samsung 463 case post trial motions
- Delaware Samsung/Google case—valid patent
- Micron WD-TX case—valid patents
- German cases
- 2 Declaratory Judgment cases
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568123765.png
These prices are the result of doubt. Doubt is being introduced in the form of news regarding the PTAB rulings. If I believed that the PTAB rulings were just and accurate, then I would be selling and writing this investment off as a loss. I'm not. But (like everyone else), I'm anxious.
The PTAB rulings and eventual outcomes of the majority of them are clear. The CAFC invalidates and reverses a majority of them. It is obvious (to me at least) that the PTAB is ill-formed. The majority of the "judges" that sit in on PTAB hearings are not qualified to do so. Most do not have the background and training to accurately assess the validity of the patents they are reviewing. THAT is why the CAFC reverses so many of them.
Unfortunately, my opinion is that NLST may see even lower prices, before the CAFC reviews the PTAB decisions in the NLST patents. Let's not forget that Gilstrap is waiting for the BOC trial to finalize, before he gives final ruling on the #0463 bench trial and the royalties judgement. Once he does, I think that Samsung will once again appeal. The stock price may suffer again, once that is announced. If it does? I will buy more. Yes, at some point I will consider the risk is enough for me, and I will cease to add shares. I'm not there yet.
Good luck to all of us.
It really is
I'm begining to wonder lol
well I still may get my 1.00 buys then i guess sic
Say it ain't so...
But unfortunately, the weekly chart show lower highs and lower lows since beginning of year.
The MACD is rolling over and turning negative.
With no news until sometime in May, new court date
The pps may be pushed lower.
BWTFDIK
wow couldn't have been more wrong, just bought 500 1.19
microby
31m
only if, possibly, one would have, then would be, there would be a possibility,
not concrete at all! do you realise that?
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568387833.JPG
microby
30m
of course, an invention must be buildable, not just in theory! It must make sense in function.
the last ptab decision with the abstruse possible combinations of conceivable inventions that could have been made.
Would this result in a Ferrari? What does Micron Dr Stone say?
"...that looks very strange. I don't think you can build that. ..."
ptab thinks it would have worked, cafc will not see it that way
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568387502.JPG
threas....... https://stocktwits.com/microby/message/568387502
Barring any bad news it looks like NLSTmay have bottomed.
gm, lol!!! i remember that!!! ''it’s a big club and we are not in it!''
obviously !!! and a 2b with routing instructions !!!
1. Netlist had patents that were granted to them…. yes
2. They licensed out their IP to Samsung, etc samscum never paid, they stole
3. Now the PTAB is stating their patents are invalid? yes
Trials After PTAB Invalidity Rulings Present Tricky Issues https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/news/trials-after-ptab-invalidity-rulings-present-tricky-issues/
Law360
January 26, 2024
By Ryan Davis
A recent case illustrates that Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions finding patents invalid do not necessarily preclude a district court from holding an infringement trial on the same patents, though attorneys say such a scenario could raise some challenging issues.
The Federal Circuit this month denied a mandamus petition in which semiconductor company Micron asked to stay an Eastern District of Texas trial in a suit against it by Netlist, until after appeals of PTAB decisions that found some of the computer memory patents at issue invalid.
A magistrate judge recommended still holding the trial, and the district judge has not yet ruled. Micron said “the patent system is tarnished” by holding a trial on patents that have been deemed invalid. But the Federal Circuit denied Micron’s petition, in part because it was filed close to the trial date, which has since been delayed.
Many judges stay infringement cases while the board reviews the patents at issue, but others in popular patent venues like those in Texas often do not, raising the possibility of a trial following an invalidity ruling. Since PTAB invalidity decisions aren’t final and can be appealed, district courts can elect to still hold a trial.
“There is nothing legally prohibiting a patent owner from proceeding to trial on a claim that has been found unpatentable by the PTAB, as long as that decision is still subject to appeal,” said Will Milliken of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC.
He noted that courts will often put the case on hold after an invalidity decision, or the parties will concede that moving forward would be inefficient. But if that doesn’t happen and the trial takes place, “it’s definitely an interesting set of circumstances,” Milliken said.
Efficiency Concerns
Since a number of judges have made clear that they aren’t inclined to stay cases to await PTAB decisions, “I think it’s an issue that is becoming more and more common,” said Manny Caixeiro of Venable LLP.
He said it’s true that once the PTAB has ruled, “the final death blow may not have occurred yet, but that really should be a very different question [from] whether it’s efficient, and whether it makes sense, to move forward with a trial.”
Holding a trial after the board has found patents invalid can be expensive and burdensome for the court and the parties, but “judges have a ton of discretion in this regard,” Caixeiro said.
He noted that holding a trial could make more sense when the parties are competitors, since continued infringement could cause the patent owner to lose market share, which is one of the reasons the magistrate judge recommended holding the trial in the Micron case. That’s less of an issue when the patent owner is a nonpracticing entity that doesn’t make products, Caixeiro said.
The “biggest concern” is that if the PTAB’s decision is upheld on appeal, which happens in 73% of cases, “that could result in unwinding any verdict on behalf of the plaintiff that was reached at trial,” said Scott Barnett of Honigman LLP. “The potential exists for the entire trial to have been for naught, and at great expense to both parties.”
Unique Issues
If a trial goes ahead after the PTAB finds the patents invalid, the court and the parties may have to confront some thorny questions, beginning with what the jury can be told about the board’s decision.
The defendant would most likely want jurors to know that the patent at issue has already been deemed invalid by a patent office tribunal. However, judges have wide discretion on such evidentiary issues, and many are reluctant to mix details of separate PTAB reviews into what may already be a complex case.
Some judges have taken the position that “the jury has enough to keep up with, without you guys starting to talk about different proceedings,” which could be confusing, Milliken said. In many situations, the patent claims at issue in court and at the PTAB are slightly different, but if they are the same, there could be a case that the board’s decision is relevant, he said.
“I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides,” he said, so “it’s not a foregone conclusion which way that one would come out.”
An invalidity decision could also factor into a defense to allegations of willful infringement, said Edward Lanquist of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC.
If the defendant claims it did not willfully infringe because it thought the patents are invalid, and the PTAB has backed up that belief, “you would think that that would certainly support my argument that there’s no willfulness here,” he said, but whether jurors could hear that would be up to the judge.
Inter partes reviews at the PTAB come with an estoppel provision, which holds that parties cannot make invalidity arguments in court that they raised or could have raised in the review. So if the board finds the patents invalid, the defendant faces some hurdles in securing an invalidity verdict at trial.
The defendant “is likely to have to mount its invalidity defense with a hand tied behind its back,” Barnett said. The invalidity arguments presented to the board, which were likely viewed as the strongest ones, would be off-limits, along with others that could have been raised, which leaves arguments that can’t be used in inter partes reviews, like patent ineligibility.
The situation arose in 2021 in a Delaware case where the PTAB found that one of the caller ID patents that TrustID asserted against Next Caller was invalid, and U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika denied Next Caller’s motion to exclude that patent from the trial.
She noted that holding a trial on claims the board found invalid, while barring the defendants from making invalidity arguments due to estoppel, “seems counterintuitive,” but “it is a permissible result that follows from the statute and relevant case law.” When the trial was held, the jury found Next Caller did not infringe any of the patents, an outcome that was affirmed on appeal.
Appeal Complications
When a trial is held after the PTAB has found the patents invalid, it’s possible the jury will conclude the patents are infringed and not invalid, which would add complexity when the different outcomes are appealed, attorneys said.
“It’s very procedurally complicated how this might play out,” Sterne Kessler’s Milliken said. He noted that under a 2013 Federal Circuit ruling known as Fresenius, an invalidity decision by the board that is upheld on appeal can wipe out a district court infringement verdict that is not yet final, making timing an important factor in the appeals.
If the board and a court reach different outcomes on invalidity and appeals are pending simultaneously, the Federal Circuit could coordinate the cases and resolve all the issues at once. But if the appeals end up on somewhat different timelines, “you can find a situation where the parties are basically in a race to try to get the judgment that they like final first,” Milliken said.
The issues can get even more convoluted if the patent has been successfully challenged at the board by a different company than the one facing trial in district court, and if there are multiple infringement trials involving different companies, Venable’s Caixeiro said.
In that scenario, there could be more than one infringement verdict, each presenting several issues, being appealed alongside a PTAB invalidity decision on the same claims, which “makes the appeal particularly complicated,” he said.
If district courts decide to hold trials after the PTAB has found the patents invalid, “you can see it coming: There is going to be a day soon where these inconsistencies are really difficult to resolve,” Caixeiro said. “The courts are going to have to address it after the fact, and that’s less than ideal.”
–Editing by Kelly Duncan and Lakshna Mehta.
100% agree TLO.
All investors should really consider that the Clown Cartel are fighting for their money at this point. This is $Billions of dollars.
Anyone thinking otherwise is not living in the real world.
How long have these 3 companies (all in collusion) been fighting NetList over property NetList owns~? For Google try 2 decades, Scamscum, and Micrumb much shorter, but the years on these companies are mounting as well.
Guilty~! Pay the man~! Heck, at least admit to payment of licensing fees~! They don't even want to do that though.
NetList has suffered damages as a result of nonpayment. The damages need to be addressed as well as the amount
of money each of these infringers has profited using NetList patented, seminal patented IP.
$1.30 are bargain prices yet again. Think NetList isn't shorted/naked shorted~? Think again...... IMO this ticker is shorted and possibly naked shorted. Forget the Short data FINRA puts out. All fudged B S. Naked shorted, can't tell because they hide synthetic shares. Only way is to look at the obligation vault. Good luck with that.
Buying opportunity.
And there is the option each of us has to fold. That is exactly what they want you to do too.
I'm buying more if I can, when I can.
$NetList baby~!
Updated litigation chart courtesy of Stokd:
I agree would like another 6k shares but only willing to pay a certian amount for the total lot...
neeed more netlist shares........ ;D
Everyone has different threshold for pain, i have no problem with people expressing their feelings. Non of us know how much each has invested or how much they have to invest. 5k to some may feel like 40k to others. I hope we can refrain from name calling as we are all in this together.
NLST
Well said 100% factual.
Everyone pay no mind to all the cry babies on this board, in fact do the opposite and
use the opportunity to buy the dip.
tlo.
ouchh! spent all my extra cash chasing the damn solar eclipse next week! LMAO otherwise i'd buy!!!
I agree with you. Yes, there's always the chance to lose all. But I think NLST will win in the end.
Logically speaking, either the PTO or the PTAB has to be screwed up. I've never tried to get a patent before, but I know people who have, and it is an incredibly long and drawn-out process. The PTO does not just issue patents "willy nilly". Usually when the PTO issues a patent, it has been researched beyond belief.
The PTAB on the other hand? Reportedly, it is made up of individuals who have little experience in the issues they are passing judgement on. This is precisely why the CAFC overturns a GIANT percentage of their rulings. The PTAB gets it wrong on something like 75%-85% of their rulings (as far as the CAFC is concerned)! This is documented! I'm not overly concerned about the PTAB rulings, specifically because of this. The unfortunate thing is that waiting for the CAFC to overturn stupid PTAB rulings will take additional time.
The price is being manipulated - at least I believe it is. And 9M shorts has weighted it down. It's the bad news of the PTAB rulings, and the constant delays of trials that are also having an effect. These things would have affected the stock price no matter the exchange NLST resided on. To think that the Nasdaq would have mattered is folly. In fact, the greater exposure the Nasdaq brings might have even affected the stock price to a greater degree. Yes, upwards AND downwards. But it is impossible to know that for sure.
Hong is the biggest shareholder here. We all know the reasons why he is holding off on a Nasdaq listing. I continue to believe that a Nasdaq listing will be made at some point. My opinion is that those who want one now are in the wrong. At any rate, it does little good to complain about it. Hong will list NLST on the Nasdaq at the time of HIS choosing.
Hang in there.
Why do you suppose SK made the deal with NLST that they did????????? anyone?
I believe 9 m short is whats holding us down, we were on the otc when nlst ran to $10.00 of course like you this is mho.
At any rate I think with in a couple months we'll know for sure. I happen to belive we'll be $10.00 or above by fall.
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
|
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
