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 think it's more than that. I think we are also being illegally naked shorted. Chuck needs to hire a team of experts to do a forensic audit of NLST trading activity over the past couple of years. I think it would reveal a lot of corruption and illegal shorting has been taking place with this ticker. One can only guess who would be behind that, but if I had to guess you probably already know who I would choose.
it'll run again and the flippied doo da's will kill the run again, lol !! and yeah i know, the shorters and the algos cant forget them !!! i hate being married in a position playing the waiting game !!!
check this out after kennedy spills some numbers today, matched with how many units and there good it'll run again and the flippied doo da's will kill the run again, lol !! and yeah i know, the shorters and the algos cant forget them !!! i hate being married in a position playing the waiting game !!! but yeah, when the time comes we're gonna get paid. that warwick guy is gonna straighten out vidal either directly or through cafc. done deal it equates to getting our money. hes giving them nothing to argue. hes telling them their job and knows they know hes right. if he has to take it to cafc they will see why there is no argument, its genius !!
BolliverShagnasty NLST Soterra Stipulation and 912 PTAB proceeding could be a boon for Netlist IMO.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NLST/comments/1cx7f2q/soterra_stipulation_and_912_ptab_proceeding/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Soterra Stipulation and 912 PTAB proceeding.
Soterra Stipulation - **"**Fintiv is based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.”
Petitioners file these so that their IPR petitions do not get denied under FINTIV rules. It is a double edged sword and in this case Samsung filed and Micron joined the Samsung IPR. Samsung only filed against claim 16 to help their buddies at Google. However when the 912 was validated I think 78 other claims were also validated. (Check my number but it is many). Micron and Samsung can't question validity on the 912 or the 417.
Micron and Samsung can't go back for a second bite at the apple. "grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” They could have brought up the other claims right? This is my interpretation so any legal minds out there are welcome to correct me if you see any holes in this but I bet we see more than claim 16 in these Texas cases!!!
TOMKiLA NLST It's already a victory to see the micron case in Texas given the dirty games of these giants in wasting time. Soon we will know the total damages that micron will have to pay to netlist and we will smile.
I have summarized the hottest data, then we will discover every evaluation or decision in a short time during the process.
• 3 million micron servers every year
• 3 years of damages
• 4 dimms on average for each server
• $23 per unit of damage (Kennedy)
• $47 per unit of royalties (Kennedy)
• 912 patent covers rdimm and lrdimm for servers
• patent 417 covers lrdimm
This data helps us understand that the 912 patent and the 417 patent could make us smile a lot.
regardless of everything that will happen in the short term, netlist will once again demonstrate its value with its patents. I hope the next cases are in a few weeks, it will be a hot summer!!
NLST Micron screwed themselves by joining Samsung's 912 IPR. Samsung had already filed a sotera stipulation. Here is an article below on Soterraa stipulations
and a quote from the article.
https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/06/23/sotera-stipulations-less-likely-given-vidal-memo-ptab-discretion/id=149778/
"Petitioners are reluctant to use Sotera stipulations because they limit invalidity options in district court proceedings. Will petitioners be any more likely to file Sotera stipulations now than they have been previously, given the limited additional benefit? Carmichael thinks no."
robcobb $NLST Not going to go over technical aspects of the trial. I capture some but very hard to keep up as they move very fast through it and I don’t want to get anything wrong!Today Magione Smith will start our day at 8:30 central with his testimony.He is a Nlst expert that testified in the Samsung case . I think Dr.Kennedy will follow him ,this is where we will find out what damages Nlst is seeking! I will be very attentive to his testimony and get the numbers that he gives regarding the Nlst patents.Haven’t had much sleep but that comes with old age,as some on the board probably already know. It looks to be a long day ahead. I will report what I hear when I can,probably through Bolliver as it is easier to tell him and let him
Post it .Probably something on lunch break,it is too hard to go through security to get to my phone for the short breaks in between,as I cannot take my phone in .We shall see what the day holds soon.Everything is looking good so far (IMO).
BolliverShagnasty $NLST Samsung cannot question the validity of the 912 patent in district Court in Texas when their trial starts. You know what that means! They are useless to Google on the 912 at this point. Jason and Irell and Manella will get the first victory to set the stage with Micron.
There is also Case Precedent I have read previously that would preclude Google from even using Samsung's invalidation of the 912 for past infringement. I think that decision will be reversed by either the director or the CAFC but I doubt Google could use it anyway.
Every one of these infringers are going to pay up!
https://stocktwits.com/BolliverShagnasty/message/573680508
Stokd $NLST It feels like a switch has been flipped on by Chuck/Sheasby once the BOC trial was won.
—Same day Friday filing a Director Review Rqs on the 912/claim 16 IPR.
—Saturday filing Notice of BOC Jury Verdict in 463 & 293 Samsung cases.
—Monday filing CAFC appeals of the 054 & 918 IPRs.
—Not to mention the Micron trial in progress, and others to come... a lot of action.
Whatever the cause/reason, I like that strategically it's beneficial for Netlist to move on these now... we like progress.
Here’s to hoping for that someday, because as of right now I’m still annoyed with his and Gail’s many ‘free’ shares and intermittent selling of them.
As am I its a slap in the face. As far as the buy out its fun to dream.
I think it gets there within 5 yrs. I'm with ya
Stokd $NLST Lets go...🔥 get it done! 💪🏼
Netlist keeping the metal to the pedal filing CAFC appeals of PTAB's invalidation of 918 & 054 / DDR5 patents, which are involved in Samsung 463 trial won by Netlist with 303mil damages award, and in Micron 203 case on limited stay and ready for trial.
And Philip Warrick—our recently discussed big gun—is working both of these appeals along with Sheasby & Zhong.
PATENT OWNER NETLIST, INC.’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
"Patent Owner Netlist appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board entered on December 6, 2023 in IPR2022- 00996, the Order denying Director Review of the Final Written Decision dated March 18, 2024, and from all underlying findings, determinations, rulings, opinions, orders, and decisions regarding the inter partes review (Case IPR2022-00996) of U.S. Patent No. 11,016,918 (the “'918 Patent”).
They are identical — 918 linked below.
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549629/download-documents?artifactId=205Gq_bLYyo5tMMtUG7GHMELnU_oX6UZNMEMWDGPn9aVaJnQelc7x_g
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_573672944.png
Hong already lives in a $10M home and another $10M+ in the bank. Hong doesn't give a rats ass what the hoi polloi Netlist investors want as it is of no consequence to him.
Speculating on buyout numbers was fun a year or so back. Now it just seems silly. I mean it makes logical sense but none of these infringers will ever make a legitimate offer till they’re 100% forced to make any kind of payment. And hopefully someday that will happen. And if/when it does, we’ll probably be happy that there was no Board of Directors who, (like most of us at this point) would most likely accept a buyout of $20 or more. If things go as planned (even though it’s taking years/decades), Hong will have the final say on accepting what he feels is a legitimate buyout offer, or not accepting and growing Netlist into a big chip player. Then maybe we’ll finally appreciate what he’s done, though the wait has been brutal.
Here’s to hoping for that someday, because as of right now I’m still annoyed with his and Gail’s many ‘free’ shares and intermittent selling of them.
isnt it funny how they can delay a case for years under the guise of we need to be prepared(bs) only to get destroyed in front of a jury in a matter of days, or even hours for that matter.
Stokd $NLST Friday Netlist filed a Director Review Request of PTAB invalidating claim 16 of 912 ptnt—which I posted, great read. It's written by our big gun from DC—Philip Warrick—who worked with Senate Judiciary Committee on IP issues as well as representing USPTO & its Director at the CAFC (Court Appeals Federal Circuit). He's also working a few cases & CAFC appeals for Netlist—I’ve shared his Irell Bio.
Along with Director Review Request filing he also sent an email to Director Vidal—“The Board wrongly determined that claim 16 of the challenged patent—which an Examiner, the Board, and the Federal Circuit repeatedly affirmed without amendment throughout a rigorous, decade-long reexamination process—is unpatentable as obvious over a single reference that does not qualify as prior art. The Board committed several errors that led it to deny the challenged patent claim the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications.”
More in pic & link to full email below
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=Hd2mB_CBu9w8M_RslQ5FI3jKo-8cPl7iJTD_R5cROwBVz1XqyMXERWI
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_573665987.png
Just got an update from Rob he said they were going till 6:30.
This was day one so it was mostly jury selection and then we had a couple of witnesses the two witnesses were Noel Whitley and Scott Milton.
A lot of this is Rob's perceptions and how he is reading the jury's body language and facial expressions. Of course this can be speculative but he nailed it pretty good with the Samsung case when it came to that jury.
This jury is comprised of seven women and one man unlike the Samsung jury which was more evenly split. Rob indicated that this jury is more attentive and they take a lot of notes.
Judge gilstrap instructed the jury and that took about 1 hour. During the instructions the judge told the jury that micron cannot challenge the validity of the patents in question.
I told Rob this is probably because they filed a Soterra Stipulation from what I recall or Samsung filed one and Micron joined the Samsung IPR. That stipulation states that if you question the validity during an IPR you agree you cannot do the same in district Court. Someone feel free to fact check me on that
Today was Jason Sheasby and Jennifer Truelove for Netlist on redirect and for Micron it was Melsheimer and Hill.
Rob said that Melsheimer comes across just like Cordell maybe a notch above as far as being a smooth slick talker. He doesn't think that plays well with the jury. It certainly didn't last time for Cordell and Samsung.
Melshimer cross examined Scott Milton and Rob said two of the jurors were kind of looking at each other during the line of questioning like WTF facial expressions. He said the reason is Scott Milton comes across as a very nice honest guy and Melsheimer was just trying to trip him up or confuse him. He said Milton held up very well.
Microns attorney Hill Cross examined Noel Whitley and a very similar reaction occurred with the jury. Three or four were looking at each other and kind of laughing because it didn't seem like the line of questioning pertained.
Rob also said that when Jason and Jennifer redirected, the jury was very attentive and taking notes.
During Jennifer's testimony it came out that Micron asked for a virtual meeting with Netlist in April of 2015. That meeting progressed into a second meeting where Micron requested to come to Netlist in person for the second meeting. The second meeting lasted for several hours.
Micron claimed the meetings produced nothing. However Jason had slides and it was shown where Micron asked what the license fees would be and they were offered a license.
Rob's perception was that the jury had to be thinking okay they didn't want to pay the license fees so they just decided to steal it.
Remember ddr4 came out second quarter of 2014.
That's basically it for today. Rob is going to add more from his notes in the morning. Tomorrow we will get some numbers because Mangione Smith and Kennedy are up to bat.
Stokd $NLST Regarding the Samsung doc few posted — some considerations are warranted given the timing and recent developments.
Samsung has filed numerous renewed stay motions in this case predicated on anything they can conjure up. Last one was denied Mar 11(top pic) and new one was filed May 13(mid pic), with today's being the redacted version—dated 5/13 by signature at bottom & Courtlistener description "Redaction to 702".
Think about it:
1-Samsung has filed and been denied all stay attempts based on numerous reasons.
2-Micron is in the same position with identical patents in the case and IPR status.
3-Gilstrap let Micron 294 case go to trial regardless.
4-Other reason for stay Samsung cites is the upcoming BOC trial may simplify case.
4-Samsung's new stay motion was filed BEFORE the BOC trial which concluded with a Netlist victory.
Meaning:
Absolutely no reason for Gilstrap to stay this case/trial while allowing Micron's to proceed... especially given the BOC win and Samsung being unlicensed.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_573665000.png
If were going to go we might as well go BIG! Let's round it off at a even $100.
Oh yeah! It's only Math! The greatest cheerleader of all!
Lol I said the same thing to my wife only I said $50.00 I like your figure better.
Sequestered share price always manipulated down.
Has nothing to do with NetList or this PR.
Market makers trying to hold this down.
So Scamscum cannot get around NetList patents any better than Micrumb can. Googoo is just the dumb partner.
Judge Scarsi saw through this Scamscum breech of contract, as did the jury. Plain as day. Scamscum stops shipping parts to NetList, NetList goes under and bankrupt, Scamscum swoops in and takes all of NetList PIP patents, seminal patents, and all. Googoo gets what they want too, superior technology for AI farms and devices Scamscum makes for them.
Am sure SK Hynix would have been left completely OUT making Scamscum the World leader in chips and more.
Micrumb probably would have been there for the ride.
SK did the right thing by being first to settle with NetList. Now their relationship grows.
NetList baby~!
As of February 2024 Micron has just over $9 billion cash on hand. I’d be ok with the trial going a couple days and then when they realize they are going to have to pay they just buy out netlist in one shot. $75/share is a fair price in my not so humble opinion……
robcobb
1m
$NLST Day just ended ,too much to type ,I only have my iPhone. I am going to call Bolliver when I get to my room and have had something to eat .Very long day very tired.We had two witnesses today Scott Milton and Noel Whitley. I will say in short ,so for everything is going good!It may be late before any details.day/ starts at 8:30 central tomorrow.
lol !!!! does this bring back any memories ??????????
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172446774
who is this kerry?????
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas
705
May 20, 2024
REDACTION to 702 OPPOSED SEALED MOTION - Samsungs Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR or in the Alternative, to Sever and Stay the 912 Patent by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Samsung Electronics Co, LTD, Samsung Semiconductor Inc. (Albert, Francis) (Entered: 05/20/2024)
Main Document
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861664/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?order_by=desc
with a reply like that from him i'd say he's either burned himself out, or he's on new medication. then again maybe hes just being philosophical. oh well.....if he does do one i'm sure we'll hear about it !
i wonder if he'll ever do another video ?
kerry !!! mister $7k a share and his you tube videos.
Reached out to him today on his Y tube channel and mention our win last week and litigation this week. Told him were looking forward to his next NLST report. This was his reply.....
(is this the beginning of the end of a long journey?)
REPLY
Its only a matter of time, when Micron trail is over ther will be another win. Shorts are only digging a deeper hole IMHO
I have no idea who you are talking about?? can you enlighten me?
lol what a day. The shorts have this in a death grip. At least we know who is shorting this into oblivion they have no reason to cover until they get the signal
Intellectual property legal fees = $139,300/day
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1282631/000155837024006807/nlst-20240330x10q.htm
Can somebody please point out where the "royalty income" is?
fair enough lets see where we go from here.
Earnings are $0 (actually negative to the tune of $27M last Q if I remember). To get a defined P/E ratio, your E can't be zero.
🤡
RobCobb 13 secs ago on ST:
$NLST Just got to the courthouse and they just finished picking the jury . They are on a 45 minute break and then the trial will begin. I will update when I am able.
Shareholder Equity = $.04/share
Cash end of period = $.16/share
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1282631/000155837024006807/nlst-20240330x10q.htm
for the time being maybe but there is a thing thats called P/E
$500M win from Samsung - $40M owed in Accounts Payable = $460M
$460M/250M Shares outstanding = $1.84/share.
Looks like the market has it about right. 🤡
I'm just baffled I guess everyone is fully vested.
We've been here a long time... We should never be surprised but the under performance!
yup they always get away lol
Ask Judge Gilstrap what his thoughts are on paid for PTAB~!
How did it work out for YOU~?
😆😅😄🤣😂
🤡
NetList baby~!
I'm very surprised too! Opportunity for shorts to cover
I surprised I thought this would hold the $2.00s
Don't spit into the wind.
robcobb
2m
$NLST Just to let everyone know I called the courthouse and talked to one of the secretaries and she said the jury selection was taking place this morning ,so I will be in Marshall sometime around noon central time ,and we will see what happens soon!
by the looks of level 2. seems the market makers are swaping spit between each other.
Followers
|
304
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
13
|
Posts (Total)
|
25102
|
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: |