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.
gilstrap already said ptab is irrelevant in his court room and neither plaintiff or defendant can present a ptab decision to the jury or even him in pre trial.
ptab is bullshit and not part of the legal system.
I wonder if Netlist will have to get the process of Appeals into the CAFC for these PTAB decisions of unpatentable claims, before the trial starts on the 29th?
Because if Samsung or Micron can just make sure the jury is informed during the trial process that the PTAB has proclaimed all these patents as unpatentable? It would certainly make the Jury think twice about pronouncing them guilty of stealing Netlists patents.
But if the CAFC appeal is in place before the trial starts, then it would probably not be allowed in court.
I wonder how the judge will handle this?
Durango24k $NLST During claim construction Google agreed to meaning of rank in the original 2010 case.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569947006.png
mrbiggumsworth $NLST look at @Durango24k he’s provided past documents where Google agreed to the definition of Rank.
Google cannot change or alter. Maybe Samsung can wiggle this rank discrepancy, but Google cannot and Gilstrap+Appeals Court will easily see what Rank is intended to represent and it will showcase the incredible asinine mental gymnastics and blind eye PTAB as useless and predatory.
Durango24k $NLST This is one of the docs from the original Google case that I posted in my previous post, where both parties agreed to these definitions during claim construction. Notice 'Rank" is a GROUP of devices, not one, a GROUP. You 'Rank' things when there is more than one. Duh. PTAB seems to be having a problem with logic. This will be straightened out in court, where normal Judges and juries have a brain.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569945675.png
robcobb $NLST We need to focus on Judge Gilstrap now not the ptab,and what his next move will be! I wonder what Judge Gilstrap is thinking after the ptab has debunked almost all of his and Judge Paynes claim constructions on the patents and jury trial with Samsung where a higher standard of evidence was observed? I know Judge Gilstrap has to put some weight on the ptab decisions but I think he will continue on with the trials and hear from the expert witnesses and the evidence presented,and let the juries decide the fate of Micron and Samsung! I will be there to observe his justice ,because I think it is coming !(IMO).April 29 will be here soon!
it just goes to show you how arrogant you can be when your given permission. gilstrap will along with cafc shoot it down and proceed as normal. once again the only draw back is time. the rest of the week should be interesting. if you have money to play with i wish ya luck. i can only watch....
this actually is good imo. it shows the obviousness of the corruption at the PTAB. anything less than that and you would think that they are not biased imo.
$NLST just in time! ill be adding more tomorrow thanks to the idiots who run the PTAB ;-D
This has to end badly for the PTAB (I hope). How could the PTAB give their blessing TWICE on the 912 Patent (Claim 16) and the CAFC bless it also - yet call it unpatentable THIS time??
Unbelievable.
i hear ya brother, by the end of the year i'm hoping for positive pps movement based on jury results from the court dates we currently have. maybe we even get lucky to have cafc overturn todays verdict by then as well, if not they still will in their given time frame. fwiw, i'm just glad ptab's decisions arent worth a pile of dog crap in any higher court.
gilstrap vs ptab, choose your side......
I sure hope it is SOONER!!
All I really want now is a pop up to 4.75 plus so I can sell half my shares for a small gain.
Keep the other half for that miracle to happen.
At 74, I just don't want to wait more years and have my money sit and producing nothing.
Heck by the time we get any money back, inflation will have reduced the value even more!!!
With Biden and company keep spending, paying all these illegals and getting us into WW3, inflation will be the least of our worries.
My aching spine and pacemaker are telling me to enjoy your money now!
GLTA
if you can call the low or get close to it i know for a fact you'll make money !!!! ptab just slammed us with their bullshit.....
Stokd $NLST Finally released it, and as expected... unpatentable! Enough with the PTAB... finally we can move forward… anchors up, destination trials!
Link to full doc-- https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=QFQQZbR91fF2AE9cFS6M4Altm83Q67-CNFVsTXWTctrP1cetup2ZhWQ
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569935878.png
i'm hoping for a good year end result if not sooner !!
now that guy should have to testify in front of a jury for every case we have against samscum.
they may not be able to testify on netlists behalf on the grounds of settling out of court but i may be talking out my backside on that, but i like the idea.
NLST!!! The truth is out there and is coming out:)$$$
SK Hynix took the deal because the patents Netlist had were valid at the time. They are probably remaining silent and watching now. If everything goes the infringer's way and patents get invalidated (as is the trend by the corrupt PTAB), they won't have to renew their contract with Netlist and can use the IP for nothing once their contract expires.
Or the guy from Samsung who admitted there was no alternative to our patents
Why not ask S K hynix testify why they decided to take a deal? Would like to hear their reasoning in front of a jury!
Sixty-three sounds like a puppy from my seventy-eight years. Just sayin'...
read whole thread.............. dpomerance
8:49 AM
$NLST Has anyone heard anything about a succession plan if Hong is unable to continue? He is getting up there in years, and he must be under a ton of stress. Just wondering out loud what will happen to the legal cases and the company for that matter if he is unable to continue.
https://stocktwits.com/dpomerance/message/569849139
Hong is only 63 years old. Barring a stroke or heart attack, I'd have to think it will be quite a while before anyone has to worry about it.
What happens when Hong gets too old to continue?
Is there some sort of plan as to what will happen when Hong can't continue. He is starting to get up in years, and I'm sure he is under a ton of stress. What would be the continuation plan?
Stokd $NLST I'm not implying one way or the other what the decision may be, but that is standard language in any/every institution decision and the threshold needed to institute an IPR proceeding.
In other words... every single decision to institute and IPR—whether ultimately the patent is validated or invalidated—contains that language.
As example, the image below is from the decision to grant institution of 314 IPR—with the same language—on which we ultimately won with a decision of all claims deemed patentable.
Again, my post has nothing to do with conviction or belief in the outcome, but to simply explain the language/process/meaning.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569830507.png
whole thread...... https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/569830507
Stokd $NLST Not sure many realize how great the decision to quash Gail subpoena is. Samsung was pursuing an angle through their bitching & moaning reply, attempting to use the issue to get another employee to testify—someone to trip As well as claims which Scarsi rebuked in his ruling.
Read at least 2pg Intro of Samsung Opposition followed by Scarsi Order, you'll see it's significant and a hilarious rejection of their💩.
"Samsung’s conduct undermines the necessity of Ms. Sasaki’s live testimony."—"At the status conference, Samsung represented that it was available to proceed to trial on May 14 notwithstanding that counsel knew (or had constructive notice) that Ms. Sasaki would be unavailable to testify then. If she were truly vital to Samsung’s case, its counsel should not have agreed to a May 14 trial date."
What Samsung asserts is far from fact or reality, with their changing interpretations/positions.
Samsung Opposition
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.490.0.pdf
Scarsi Ordr
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.493.0.pdf
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569827304.png
Friday should hear about the Claim 16… I mean I’ll be surprised if the PTAB has anything positive to say.. then we rise going into April 29th? Then continue going to May 14.. then we get judge Gilstraps royalty rates ? Then idk what’s next..
Stokd $NLST Something to keep in mind regarding certain rulings by judges—especially procedural ones—is that ultimately we need everything we win to hold up on appeal. Therefore, anytime the judge rules a certain way that may seem negative/against us at the time, may actually be beneficial to our goals and intended outcomes.
The judges don’t want to be reversed or the case remanded on appeal as much as us and Netlist, so with perspective we should take that into consideration upon certain rulings—like Netlist’s application for the judge to expedite briefing and rule before Samsung can reply. A judge protecting his record/judgments is also protection for the winners of the case/trial—presumably us… of course.
Stokd $NLST 🔥🔥🔥 Judge Scarsi in the BOC case just granted Netlist's motion to quash trial subpoena of Gail Sasaki.
"On balance, the Court determines that the high potential prejudice to Ms. Sasaki outweighs the other factors. The trial subpoena directed to Ms. Sasaki imposes an undue burden and must be quashed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). The motion is granted."
Link to full doc below--- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.493.0.pdf
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569787550.png
no problem, all that stuff was posted but i cant recall which doc# it falls under. they ended up canceling this that and the other. then we ended up with that trial date. that link up top stickied has all the cases if ya got a few hours to kill.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173963830
OK No problem!
You said "What happened to Our pretrial conference today at 2:00 PM ?????????"
You said that yesterday, on the fifteenth.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174243823
I can see no order for a pretrial conference on the fifteenth!
As far as I can see? Yes, the 29th is the next scheduled hearing date and will involve jury selection and trial day 1.
Jet & 100lb
thanks
294....... Apr 8, 2024, best i can do for ya........
Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Selection and Trial Day 1 previously set for 4/26/2024 has been RESET to its original date of 4/29/2024 at 09:00 AM in Ctrm 106 (Marshall) before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. (aeb)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
I've looked over the docket for that case and do not see any hearing that was scheduled for the 15th. I certainly could have missed it. Can you tell me the docket # in which Gilstrap issued that date for a pretrial conference? I see a few scheduled hearings but none that I can see mention the 15th. I do apologize in advance if I have missed it.
Jet .............Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC, 2:22-cv-00294, (E.D. Tex.)
For which case are you referring to?
SilviaJ
2:26 AM
$NLST I went back and re-read (again and again) the oral arguments for claim 16 of the 912 patent. This is what I took from the back and forth.
The Ellsberry prior art discussion mostly revolves around priority dates. NLST asserts that the 912 is a continuation of the 436, which is a continuation of the 386, which is a continuation of the 244, which has priority over Ellsberry (which is true). But, Samsung argues that the 436 did not discuss claim 16 art.
But Dr Zhong indicated that the 386 (prior to the 436) has claim 16 art which doesn't need to be repeated in all "continuation" art. In addition, Samsung never raised the PLL issue in petition (only in the reply)........which is not allowed.
So, Anita Zhong was quick to dismiss Ellsberry and went on to more important arguments. She seems pretty confident that Ellsberry is a non-issue and focuses on Perego.
full thread...... https://stocktwits.com/SilviaJ/message/569690757
What happened to Our pretrial conference today at 2:00 PM ?????????
True....... some more than others.
Tomkila............... Samsung Develops Industry’s First High Bandwidth Memory with AI Processing Power (netlist tech)
HBM
Samsung Electronics, the world leader in advanced memory technology, today announced that it has developed the industry’s first High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) integrated with artificial intelligence (AI) processing power — the HBM-PIM. The new processing-in-memory (PIM) architecture brings powerful AI computing capabilities inside high-performance memory, to accelerate large-scale processing in data centers, high performance computing (HPC) systems and AI-enabled mobile applications.
They are still using netlist tech without ip licenses! Road to $ 500m HBM damages !
https://semiconductor.samsung.com/news-events/news/samsung-brings-in-memory-processing-power-to-wider-range-of-applications/#:~:text=First%20Integration%20of%20HBM%2DPIM,in%20supercomputers%20and%20AI%20applications.
I hate lobbyists!
I'm not suggesting it. I've said they always have performed with integrity as far as I can tell. My big concern is they are our last line of defense. We have the big infringers with great influence affecting things. The PTAB has invalidated numerous of our patents and still look at other ones that have passed the test many times. We have few friends, or support. Our Lawyers who are great, and these judges are all we have left. And the truth. I just think there's outside influences, even on our judges. We need them to stand strong despite all that's going against us. And the ongoing delays continue to kill us. I'd love to finalize a Royalty rate on the Samsung case we won. I understand the reason to wait, but it's been a long time coming. As many other long term posters/holders, my patience is being tried and I start to worry about everything. I assume I'm not alone, but maybe most of you are still very confident. I'm past that phase.
If you're insinuating that either Gilstrap and Scarsi "has a price"??
There's not been ONE IOTA of evidence that suggests that and I think the suggestion of it is bullshit.
I think you're totally wrong and I take exception to that statement.
$6.4 billion investment in Texas by Samsung. Meanwhile it feels like all we have going for us is a couple Texas judges, and the truth (which unfortunately, and bizarrely, might not matter). That kind of money invested by Samsung in Texas is not coincidental. They'll be looking for some quid pro quo. I've trusted the integrity of Gilstrap and Scarsi. But unfortunately everyone has a price and someone they answer to.
I don't know.
That is a lots of money being thrown around for Samsung in Texas.
All that money sloshing through people pockets can persuade them to look the other way.
What hell now they are going to be in our back yard! https://www.npr.org/2024/04/15/1244716743/biden-samsung-texas-semiconductor-chips
Followers
|
305
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
25048
|
Created
|
05/14/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators gdog 100lbStriper Daylas 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: |