NetList Inc (NLST)

[100lbStriper]

robcobb
5:54 AM

$NLST As everyone knows I have attended all the previous Pre-Trials, and I want to talk about the difference between Judge Gilstrap and Judge Payne on how they handle them.Judge Payne listens to the motion arguments and rules as he goes not necessarily in order.Judge Gilstrap listens to the motion arguments and makes a ruling on each one at the end of the hearing.For me it is easier to get the rulings that Judge Gilstrap makes because they are (usually in order), and it is easier to get whether the motion is granted or denied.(Judge Gilstrap is presiding over this Pre-Trial.) I think it will be easier for me and Prime (Larry)to get the rulings with Judge Gilstrap at the helm if he rules like in the past. I would think we are about to get a document drop separating the motions on the 294and 293 cases,since the 60 some odd motions pertain to both cases,and Judge Gilstrap said he wanted them separated!Only two more days till we find out what can be presented at trial!

[100lbStriper]

after 15 minutes of trying i cant figure out how to un pin what i already have up there but will get to it later.

[GreenBio]

Thanks for sharing, are you able to Pin that?

[100lbStriper]

for the benefit of all those like me who lose things, a list of CourtListner links where you can find the documents of the various trials:

'293 Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861664/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/

203 Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (2:22-cv-00203)
District Court, E.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63378313/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/

1453 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc. (1:21-cv-01453)
District Court, D. Delaware
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60649248/samsung-electronics-co-ltd-v-netlist-inc/

294 Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294)
District Court, E.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/

5718 Netlist, Inc. v. Google LLC (3:09-cv-05718)
District Court, N.D. California
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4176760/netlist-inc-v-google-llc/

993 Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (8:20-cv-00993)
District Court, C.D. California
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/

431 Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (6:21-cv-00431)
District Court, W.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59863394/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/

430 Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (6:21-cv-00430)
District Court, W.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59863385/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/

463 Netlist, Inc. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (2:21-cv-00463)
District Court, E.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61631188/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/

136 Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (1:22-cv-00136)
District Court, W.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63002940/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/

134 Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (1:22-cv-00134)
District Court, W.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63002044/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/

1122
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?plaintiff=Samsung+Electronics+America+Inc

https://samlover.com/2023/10/12/samsung-and-netlist-continue-patent-fight-with-new-lawsuit/

628 Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.226945/gov.uscourts.txed.226945.15.0.pdf

[mikeg2]

Very well stated , and I feel the same way that you do .

The interminable court delays are just as criminal as the infringement by these bastard companies. I know some have held more than 10 years , and here I am getting impatient at “only” 3+ years.

While I think Netlist will eventually win , I have to constantly ask myself about the investability of a company that can’t monetize their IP because of a very broken US legal system and a pretty obstinant management team. I’m here for now , would like to stay loyal and maybe buy more than my 182k shares. But right now , I have to ask myself how do I add more investment here?

[100lbStriper]

$NLST about the last 11914481 patent ( , you can understand more about nvm tech https://www.techtarget.com/searchstorage/definition/nonvolatile-memory

DEFINITION
non-volatile memory (NVM)

Carol Sliwa
By
Carol Sliwa
Non-volatile memory (NVMe) is a semiconductor technology that does not require a continuous power supply to retain the data or program code stored in a computing device.

System manufacturers use different types of non-volatile memory chips for a variety of purposes. For instance, one type of NVM might store the controller program code for devices such as hard disk drives (HDDs) and tape drives. Another type of NVM is commonly used for data storage in solid-state drives (SSDs), USB drives and memory cards in digital cameras, cell phones and other devices.

Solid-state storage typically uses a variant of non-volatile memory known as NAND flash. SSDs have no moving parts, and they are capable of higher performance than mechanically addressed HDDs and tape, which use a head to read and write data to magnetic storage media. SSDs directly connected to a computer's processor through a PCI Express (PCIe) bus offer lower latency than Serial-Attached SCSI (SAS)- or Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (SATA)-based SSDs plugged into external drive bays.

Types of non-volatile memory
Many types of non-volatile memory are in use today to read and write data to and from enterprise and consumer systems, and each one offers advantages and disadvantages.

NAND flash, the most common type used in data storage, includes several variations, including single-level cell (SLC), or one bit per cell; multi-level cell (MLC), or two bits per cell; triple-level cell (TLC), or three bits per cell; and quad-level cell (QLC), or four bits per cell.

Manufacturers have continued to develop NAND flash technologies with the goal of reducing the cost per bit. They introduced 3D NAND flash when they encountered difficulty in scaling two-dimensional NAND, which has a single layer of memory cells. Newer 3D NAND flash technology stacks memory cells in vertical layers to achieve greater storage density.

https://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/storage-nonvolitale_memory_1.jpg

Technology vendors also continue to work on additional non-volatile memory technologies to lower costs, improve performance, increase storage density, raise endurance levels and reduce power consumption.

What's the difference between volatile memory and non-volatile memory?
Volatile memory is a semiconductor technology that requires a continuous power supply to retain stored data. Prominent examples of volatile memory are static random access memory (SRAM) and dynamic RAM (DRAM). Manufacturers sometimes add battery power to volatile memory devices to support persistent data storage.

Enterprise and client computer systems often use a combination of volatile and non-volatile memory technologies, and each memory type has its strengths and weaknesses.

For instance, SRAM is faster than DRAM, and is well suited to high-speed caching. DRAM, a successor to SRAM, is cheaper to produce and requires less power than SRAM in active mode. A common use case for DRAM is storing the main program code that a computer processor needs to function.

Non-volatile NAND flash is slower than DRAM and SRAM for writing and reading data. However, NAND flash is far less expensive to produce than DRAM and SRAM, making the technology a better fit for persistent data storage in business systems and consumer devices.

https://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/storage-nonvolitale_memory_2.jpg

NVM vs. NVMe
The terms non-volatile memory and non-volatile memory express (NVMe) are similar sounding, but they are separate and distinct in meaning. NVM is a semiconductor technology that emerged in the late 1940s, while NVMe is a host controller interface and storage protocol that a consortium of technology vendors began developing in 2009.

The NVM Host Controller Interface Work Group published the 1.0 NVMe specification on March 1, 2011. NVMe is designed to speed the transfer of data between host systems and SSDs over a computer's PCIe bus. NVMe supports the use of different types of non-volatile memory, such as NAND flash and the 3D XPoint technology developed by Intel and Micron.

NVMe is an alternative to the Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) standard and the Advanced Technology Attachment (ATA) standard in use with SAS and SATA drives, respectively. NVMe uses fewer than half the number of CPU instructions than the SCSI and ATA command sets. NVMe-based PCIe SSDs offer lower latency, higher IOPS and potentially lower power consumption than SAS- and SATA-based SSDs.

[100lbStriper]

FrankFromYahoo
1:17 AM

$NLST @Stokd yes! a good sign ! He would not do this, if he was thinking to stay his cases in Texas in order to wait for PTAB or even for the final outcome after appeals. Some people apparently had this fear when Micron 203 case was cancelled due to double booking and because Gilstrap noted the coming PTAB FWD in April. Some interpreted the same may apply for the 293/294 cases and that Gilstrap ultimately will stay the cases for PTAB/appeals. His pushing now with his sua sponte decision prove this fear wrong. Gilstrap will proceed with the trials and - as always - he will make sure that the jury will make their own independent decision.

[100lbStriper]

NLST Sua-sponte🍾Gilstrap working on a Saturday making sure the parties will be ready for this trial. The few recently added motions—where Gilstrap ordered expedited briefings—will be heard at the pretrial conference March 6.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_564045062.png

[100lbStriper]

Another thing to point out is we are finally within a year away from a Google case (DE), and probably SK Hynix renegotiations of the 5 year 2021 current deal—negotiations usually occurring a year before expiration. The Delaware (DE) Samsung/Google case involves a patent that had a favorable FWD of patentability rendered by the PTAB, as well as a WD Micron case which have a few patents with favorable FWDs—eliminating a lot of grey area or uncertainty about trials—Samsung/Micron/Google cannot escape.
We have a busy 2024 and it looks like an eventful 2025 not too far away. I know I'm looking far forward, but...
Removed "new/changed highlight" aspect from the chart, easy instead to state what is new or changed... in this case nothing.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_564044285.png

[100lbStriper]

Stokd
Yesterday 8:13 PM

$NLST Regardless if and on what grounds, this is different than patent infringement litigation—where among other distinctions, we have to wait for appeals to receive awarded damages, in addition to IPR/patent challenges still being unresolved in the meantime.
In the instance we win the BOC trial, that ruling stands unless and until overturned on appeal, applying to all other cases and situations as Samsung has no license—which is all we need going forward as other Samsung patent infringement cases/trials work their way through the process. Keep in mind, there is also one Samsung case in post trial awaiting a ruling for ongoing royalty, as well as the Samsung/Google Delaware case which was stayed till the BOC trial resolves the license issue. The favorable implications from a BOC trial win far outweigh any fear from appeal—again. 😂🍻

[100lbStriper]

NLST Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294) District Court, E.D. Texas https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?order_by=desc

[100lbStriper]

2 New Entries in Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294) District Court, E.D. Texas

40 Mar 1, 2024. Sealed Motion
41 Mar 1, 2024 Sealed Document
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?order_by=desc

[100lbStriper]

Stokd
2m

$NLST The new Order—another "sua sponte" by Gilstrap—is just for an expedited briefing by Netlist on Micron's recent motion.
It seems Gilstrap wants to make sure this case stays on schedule and is ready for trial, indicating the intention to not repeat a last minute cancellation... I would bet our case has priority in the instance Gilstrap booked more than one, as usually his practice.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563957419.png

[100lbStriper]

Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294)
District Court, E.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?order_by=desc

[100lbStriper]

Takeaway:

Practitioners should not rely on PTAB decisions to shield themselves from infringement liability in district court unless the Federal Circuit has affirmed the decision or the parties have waived their appeal rights. And before filing an IPR, petitioners must carefully weigh the IPR’s timeline against the timing and schedule of any parallel district court litigation.

[gooferball]

Appreciate the sentiment, MP33, I do hope for the best but always try to be prepared for the worst.

GLTY and all the Longs here. Cheers!!

[100lbStriper]

Stokd
10m

$NLST This is good and relevant to our circumstances, affirms our frequent discussion.
*Supreme Court Denies Petition Arguing for Preclusive Effects of PTAB Decisions Pending Appeal*
"Supreme Court denied Liquidia Technologies’ petition for a writ of certiorari to review a precedential Federal Circuit decision. In the petition, Liquidia argued that a PTAB written decision should block liability of infringement in parallel district court litigation, even while pending appeal."
-United sued Liquidia for infringement.
-Liquidia petitioned IPRs.
-PTAB FWD—all claims unpatentable.
-Liquidia submitted FWD in district court.
-Dist Crt declined collateral estoppel—"PTAB decision “does not have collateral estoppel effect until that decision is affirmed.”—"district court also held all claims of the 793 ptnt were not invalid".
-Fed Cir(CAFC) affirmed Dist Crt's finding.
-Liquidia filed writ/certiorari to SCOTUS.
-SCOTUS denied Liquidia’s petition—"Fed Cir holding remains good law".
https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/supreme-court-denies-petition-arguing-for-preclusive-effects-of-ptab-decisions-pending-appeal/

[100lbStriper]

microby
2:38 PM

⏰

⏰

what‘s happening behind, beneath, parallel? 🧗🥞✍🏻

US11176040B2 was granted back in autumn 2021, continuation of patent ‘753 now, this older one is worldwide protected and has an european paper EP… https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f1/68/a9/2fb664608e62db/WO2017189620A1.pdf
years later, a second european patent EP4325370A2 was granted in February on Paris patent office 🇫🇷

This paper does not make money! But it will protect our own upcoming memory products.

As you can see from rmbs, once acceptance has been gained from the industry, contracts are extended and renewed.

This is what I call Netlist's fight for respectful cooperation and acceptance of established inventions, which since MEMORY MODULE DECODER has resulted in billions in sales for the 3.
🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🥞🥞🥞🥞🍀🍀🍀

good luck 👍🏼
microby 👋🏼

[100lbStriper]

S-8 Securities Registration: Employee Benefit Plan Mar 01, 2024
S-8 POS Post-Effective Amendment to an S-8 filing Mar 01, 2024
https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/3200/us-sec-filings.html

[MysticalPhoenix33]

I'm pulling for you: live long enough to enjoy a successful win...and a big trust account to pass on.

[gooferball]

I'm not long for this world, but I'm comfortable with my NLST shares simmering in a trust account for my daughter's solvent future. Just sayin'...

[100lbStriper]

we're all frustrated. wellcome to america where big money talks and joe average walks.......... i believe we will see judgement on the 300mil after scarsi rules about the boc, then strap can set rates and so on. other than that i know about as much as you my friend. my angle of looking at it that brings me some comfort is litigation is going our way. but i want that money in nlst's bank account as bad as you !

[Jetmek_03052]

Unless there's a settlement between Samsung and NLST, I'm afraid you can look forward to more delay.

My opinion but I think Gilstrap is waiting to see the results of the CA BOC case first. That would solidify the timespan in which Samsung has infringed. Then he can give accurate numbers regarding the royalties due Netlist (to date) and finish the case. Once he does that, you can be 100% assured that Samsung will appeal the finished case. I think Gilstrap is trying to "cross all the T's" and "dot all the I's" to lessen the chances of a successful appeal by Samsung. But I think it will be successfully appealed, regardless. If the appeal is heard, it will be another 12-18 months of wait.

The Micron case is different. There's not much doubt they will be found guilty, and pretty quickly. Then you can be sure THEY will file an appeal to their case. Again, I think that Gilstrap is trying to be super careful so as to leave as little "appeal" wiggle room as possible. But I feel sure that the appeal will take place.

I am also frustrated. But each step is a little closer to the finale. Google.

The legal system is very ponderous. I don't know of much that NLST could do differently - except to give in and settle for a tithe of what their IP is actually worth. This is what the infringers are hoping for, I'm sure. I wouldn't want them to do that. We are all in different places but for myself - I have the shares I want and the time to wait. Everyone has a decision process to go through.

My opinion.

Good luck.

[papaphilip]

Where does the case stand in which Netlist won $303 million from Samsung? That judgement came out 11 months ago. Next month it will be a year. Are we still waiting for Gilstrap to determine a royalty rate for the judgement? I am so confused how this case can go undealt with for a year. Are we waiting for a final judgment on it, and only then will Samsung will appeal it? I can see why shorts are all over this stock. A year after a huge win and no one is holding Samsung's feet to the fire! I have to assume that it's all part of the ongoing settlement negotiations, but the strong sense is that no deal will get done, and they'll all have to go to trial. Infringers feel emboldened by PTAB invalidations, and Netlist knows they have the goods. Not much middle ground for a settlement.
I just am so annoyed that Netlist won, and Gilstrap won't close out that case. I wish he would finish that case, let Samsung appeal, and get finality on SOMETHING! Shorts see this for what it is, a literal NEVER ENDING battle! And no resolution means shorts win. And us longs hold on, and on, and on....

Very frustrated here.

[100lbStriper]

TOMKiLA
8:22 AM

$NLST micron deserves nothing except to go to trial and have to pay billions of dollars in damages. You will say that they are exaggerated, we will soon see what numbers will emerge in these two cases. Here we are talking about the third company in the dram business with a minimum of 10 and a maximum of $20 billion in dram revenues per year.

Micron will have to pay a huge amount of damages for:
• tens of millions of ddr4 lrdimm& rdimm 912 + other patents
• million lrdimm units
• tens of millions of ddr5
• tens of millions of hbm

Samsung's data is $16 per hbm and ddr5 unit & $55 per lrdimm, I'm curious to understand what output numbers and how much damage this infamous company will pay.

We are talking about potential timing between 2016 to 2024! (Netlist is asking damages since 2021 and micron should pay 5 year early notice of damages

[Rick1997]

Micron stock doubling in volume

[100lbStriper]

pre trial conference is 3-6-24 next wednesday for micrap... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.678.0.pdf

[100lbStriper]

this is due today before midnight........ https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563480507.jpeg

[100lbStriper]

calandra is becoming quite popular, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.679.0.pdf

[Jetmek_03052]

Case 8:20-cv-00993-MCS-ADS Document 426 Filed 02/28/24

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.426.0.pdf



Title Page

Attorneys for Plaintiff Netlist Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NETLIST INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., a Korean corporation,
Defendant.

Case No. 8:20-cv-00993-MCS (ADS)

NETLIST INC.’S NOTICE OF
SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN
SUPPORT OF NETLIST’S MOTION IN
LIMINE TO ADMIT TESTIMONY (#3)
[REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION]
Date: March 18, 2024
Time: 2 p.m. PT
Location: Courtroom 7C
Judge: Hon. Mark C. Scars

Page 1

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIITY
Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) respectfully submits this Notice in support of Netlist’s
Motion in Limine to Admit Testimony (Dkt. 417), to inform the Court that Judge
Gilstrap has granted Netlist’s Motion for Relief from the Protective Order to allow
Netlist to present the deposition testimony of Mr. Joseph Calandra for this Court’s
review for admission in this Action.

Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-
cv-293, Dkt. 679 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2024).

Judge Gilstrap held:
Netlist is not seeking to obtain extra discovery in this case to be used
in the CDCA Action, but rather Netlist is simply asking that it be
allowed to show Judge Scarsi deposition testimony that has already
taken place so that Judge Scarsi can determine whether or not such
testimony is relevant and admissible in the CDCA.

Exhibit A at 3. A true and correct copy of the testimony Netlist seeks to admit is
attached as Exhibit B (the exhibit includes full pages with the proposed testimony to
designate for playing before the jury highlighted).

As discussed in the Motion (Dkt. 417 at 5), Mr. Calandra was Samsung’s
30(b)(6) witness on various topics relating to Samsung policies regarding product
sales of NAND and DRAM, which cover the application of sales to customers with a
supply agreement such as the JDLA, including topic 55 (“facts and circumstances of
all sales or offers for sale of the Samsung Accused Products”), topic 51 (“Samsung’s
actual, proposed, contemplated, planned or prospective pricing policies, strategies,
plans, practices, or decisions for the Samsung Accused Products”), topic 50
(“distribution channels for the Samsung Accused Products”), and topic 59 (“expected,
planned, and forecasted profitability, revenues, and sales of the Samsung Accused
Products”). Dkt 417-14 (Ex. 13 (Netlist 30(b)(6) notice), 474-17 (Ex. 16 Samsung
email designating Mr. Calandra).

{Redacted lines = 3}

Page 2

{Redacted Lines = 9}

Samsung stated to the Ninth Circuit: “No ordinary businessperson in
Samsung’s position would agree to supply an unquantified amount of DRAM and
NAND to a single customer ‘on request at a competitive price.’” Netlist Inc. v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., LTD., 2022 WL 21243 72, at *34-35 (9th Cir. Jun. 6, 2022)
(Samsung’s Brief on Cross-Appeal). Samsung’s recently filed Memorandum of
Contentions of Fact and Law (Dkt. 402) has made clear it intends to attempt to present
the same argument to the jury. Under “Key Evidence in Opposition” Samsung lists
“Evidence of true supply agreements the parties have entered, which are materially
different in structure, language and substance from the JDLA.”

Dated: February 28, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A. Matthew Ashley
Jason Sheasby
Michael Harbour


By: /s/ Jason Sheasby
Jason Sheasby

[100lbStriper]

NLST and a new patent https://patents.justia.com/assignee/netlist-inc

[100lbStriper]

SK Hynix has ‘sold out’ of HBM DRAMs for 2024 https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/sk-hynix-has-sold-out-of-hbm-drams-for-2024/

[100lbStriper]

Stokd
Yesterday 10:25 PM

$NLST And the other we're about to go to trial with (Micron) has problems within the firm representing them on our cases (Winston&Strawn), in a Copyright Infringement case unrelated to Netlist, not only against Winston&Strawn but also naming Michael Rueckheim as one of 4 defendants, Rueckheim has been the acting lead for Micron on our cases as long as I can remember, filing in and signing for Meilsheimer.
It's like an episode on the show Suits, where the firm the attorneys work for has to defend their own attorneys, and themselves, for plagiarizing a brief of all things...😂
The requests in the letter below were granted, and I'll be following the case for anything juicy.
Letter-- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.612691/gov.uscourts.nysd.612691.23.0.pdf

Order/Grant-- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.612691/gov.uscourts.nysd.612691.24.0.pdf

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563584612.png

[100lbStriper]

Stokd
Yesterday 9:41 PM

$NLST Another article on the same case.
[[["Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. wants a breach of contract lawsuit moved from state court, days after a Texas jury determined the electronics giant must pay Koninklijke Kpn $287 million for BREAKING A CONTRACT CONCERNING A PATENT LICENSING DEAL. Samsung sought to move the dispute to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s jurisdiction one business day after the Feb. 23 verdict in the Harrison County 71st District Court, according to a notice of related cases filed Tuesday."]]]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/samsung-wants-287-million-contract-breach-suit-in-federal-court

[100lbStriper]

Samsung Accused of Trying to Hide $287 Million Suit from Public
Stokd
Yesterday 9:38 PM

$NLST We can only wonder who is not aware of Samsung's nefarious ways by now, from judges to jury to contract partners to consumers, all are in the loop. The need for secrecy is obvious.
[[["A U.S. District Court judge refused to seal Samsung Electronics Co.'s request to remove a BREACH OF CONTRACT case to a Texas federal court after a Dutch telecommunications company accused the Korean giant of trying to “conceal the very existence of this case from the public.”
Koninklijke KPN told a Texas federal judge on Feb. 27 that, “As far as KPN’s counsel has been informed by the Clerk of the Court, Samsung instructed that the entire case, not just its initiating document, should be concealed from the public.” This came after Samsung sought to move the case from state court ..."]]]
Subscription needed to read the rest.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/samsung-accused-of-trying-to-hide-287-million-suit-from-public

[mikeg2]

It’s a valid point , but it did not happen in the Samsung verdict last April. Those Texas jurors, a group of ordinary citizens were convinced overwhelmingly of Samsungs theft of Netlist tech. This in large part thanks to Netlist’s legal team who were able to explain in understandable terms the scope and breadth of Samsungs theft of Netlist patents . I wouldn’t worry too much about the jury, Jason Sheasby knows exactly how to present things in layman terms , regardless of the opposition legal team desperately trying to confuse .

[100lbStriper]

Stokd
22m

$NLST Considering the numerous key changes/developments since the chart version I posted last night... figure it's best to get the updated out asap. As the legend shows, anything new or changed since last update is highlighted yellow.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/fit-in/500x0/filters:quality(75)/production/original_563552576.png

[100lbStriper]

robcobb
59m

$NLST Well we had a little glimpse of the Judge Gilstrap that I have been witnessing in the courtroom over the last several months with the latest document drops posted by Stokd.The discovery deposition being allowed to go to Judge Scarsi court is big in my eyes even though I think Nlst would win without it (IMO).I really like the fact that Judge Scarsi told Jason he needed to get permission from Judge Gilstrap before he brought the discovery to him,and Judge Gilstrap granted it!(just icing on the cake),and Micron being up to bat first is also big,because I think they are the most likely to settle at this point (IMO). It’s only a week (March 6 )till the Pre-trial Conference in the now Micron case instead of Samsung!Looking forward to next week and reporting.This will be better than the 25 minute hearing I drove 4 hours to witness this week,although Judge Gilstrap has already fulfilled the things he said he would rule on soon in that hearing,plus a few extra that I am excited about!

[100lbStriper]

believe it or not the exact opposite is happening through all the delay that we have recently experienced. read the court docs there clearing it up to make it more simplified. it just sounds messy because we are not privvy to how they resolve everything. the one thing you will garner through reading what has been posted earlier is that there dividing things up for them to be addressed in a more simplified manner in the court room thus not causing any confusion. scamsung and micrap are going to get their head handed to them. this isnt hype. the tactics they've pulled recently have pissed the judge off. everyone knows there guilty as sin and so do they, but they are out of options to pull. nlst with irell and m with sheasby know exactly how to handle this. we'll be more than ok !

[Hawkeye3]

My biggest worry is that Micron and Samsung are trying to make the court cases so complicated that the jurys will be so confused and rule for the defendants, that is what they normaly do when they know they have slim chances of winning. Seen it many times before.

[100lbStriper]

NLST Another sua sponte order from Gilstrap in the Micron #294 case for expedited briefing, shifting into overdrive—“The Court issues this Order sua sponte. Before the Court are Netlist’s Motion for Consolidation (2:22-CV-00293, Dkt. No. 607), Netlist’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Expert Reports (2:22-CV-00293, Dkt. No. 608), and Micron’s Motion to Compel Production of Expert Deposition Transcript from Lead Case (2:22-CV-00293, Dkt. No. 660) (collectively, the “Motions”). The responses to the Motions are due the day before the pre-trial conference. The Court finds that expedited briefing is warranted.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS sua sponte that the parties’ respective responses to the Motions, if any, must be filed no later than Friday, March 1, 2024.” https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563480507.jpeg

[100lbStriper]

BolliverShagnasty
12:17 PM

$NLST I love this part.
"In the past few months, the parties have filed nearly sixty motions. It is apparent that many of these motions affect one case, but not the other. It is overwhelmingly apparent that consolidation of the above-captioned cases is not producing the efficiency gains that consolidation is designed to produce."

Judge Gilstrap appears slightly annoyed.

https://stocktwits.com/BolliverShagnasty/message/563462186

[100lbStriper]

NLST Another Order 🔥 Micron to trial first — "The Court issues this order sua sponte. The Court previously consolidated the above- captioned cases (293 & 294). In the past few months, the parties have filed nearly sixty motions. It is apparent that many of these motions affect one case, but not the other. It is overwhelmingly apparent that consolidation of the above-captioned cases is not producing the efficiency gains that consolidation is designed to produce. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case. It is now clear that it would be beneficial if these cases were deconsolidated to follow their own separate schedules. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the District Clerk DECONSOLIDATE the Micron 294 from the Samsung 293. It is further
ORDERED that the Micron 294, is specially set for trial on April 22" --- "It is further ORDERED that the pretrial conference and trial dates for the Samsung case 293, are cancelled to be reset at a later date."
Link to full - https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563459979.png

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.678.0.pdf

[100lbStriper]

NLST "Having considered the Motion and the subsequent briefing, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED."
"According to Netlist, Samsung’s corporate representative, Joseph Calandra, provided testimony in this case that contradicts certain positions that Samsung has taken in the co-pending CDCA Action. (Dkt. No. 553 at 2.) Netlist desires to present the testimony from this case in the CDCA Action. However, Mr. Calandra’s testimony has been designated as confidential under the protective order in this case, preventing Netlist from presenting Mr. Calandra’s testimony in the CDCA Action in any manner. As a result, Netlist now seeks relief from the protective order in this case to present Mr. Calandra’s testimony to Hon. Mark C. Scarsi so that he may then determine whether such testimony is relevant and admissible in the CDCA Action." https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563457500.png

[100lbStriper]

$NLST Boom 🔥 Netlist's Motion for Relief from Protective Order is GRANTED — "it is ORDERED that Netlist may present the deposition testimony of Mr. Calandra for review by Judge Scarsi in the CDCA Action."
Link to full filing below-- https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563456719.png

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.679.0.pdf

[100lbStriper]

Samsung Develops Industry-First 36GB HBM3E 12H DRAM https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-develops-industry-first-36gb-hbm3e-12h-dram

[100lbStriper]

TOMKiLA
7:17 AM

$NLST If Samsung loses the previous contract with Netlist (2015-2020), it will be responsible for exaggerated damages of all rdimms and lrdimms with 912 technology together with those infamous microns.
You can see it from the pic, an average of 13m servers sold, practically all of them have 912 technology. Each server has a minimum of 4 dimms, the April case concerns all rdimms and lrdimms ddr4, the volumes will be gigantic. over 40 million potential units per year with integrated 912.
I'm telling you, Samsung risks more than a billion $ in damages and Micron should be very close too.

This case will be the biggest and most important of netlist without a doubt.

Here we are talking about tens of millions of dimms sold every single year, very large numbers.

Between 5 and 8 years of damages lol :) good luck guys https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563385770.png

[100lbStriper]

FrankFromYahoo
4:57 AM

$NLST The soon, in less than 4 weeks, coming BOC trial (with the jury judgement coming in the same week) could also have a big impact the European cases and damages awarded there. See the screenshot on point 8.2 of the concerned contract stokds post below. This states "woldwide" regarding licence. So if the jury further limits the time and scope when and for which products Samsung had a licence, this would also affect Europe (completely independent from PTAB). Best would if the jury declared the whole contract ambigous and null and conclude that Samsung never had a valid licence. I still think however, that judge Scarsi will "guide" the jury towards a judgements which is highly consistent (if not the same) as his first judgement, which is that Samsung materially breached the contract, that Netlist properly terminated the contract and thus Samsung lost its worldwide (!) licence with that termination.

[100lbStriper]

Stokd
3:49 AM

$NLST *Netlist Litigation Chart*
Adjusted some things to increase scale and declutter, also want to stay future focused as the past can be explained.
As much as the chart is for new investors, it is more so for us longs who have been on this journey, to help us follow and stay on track collectively through all the complexities and numerous parallel litigation.
I Removed:
-“race to finality” & CAFC affirmation—can be explained / should be a given.
-2021 SK Hynix case/settlement—awaiting 2025 renegotiation.
-Sheasby figure—a given he’s on / part of everything.
-case # from legend—obvious on chart.
-unnecessary designs/images
-PTAB IPR Oral Hearing box—only few left, easy to remind.
-BOC appeal case—remanded back to original BOC case/judge.
-“+ Injunction” in German cases—a given injunctions are in play in German court.
Only going with what is current—anything relevant or extra, such as what I referenced above, can be explained and discussed on the board or found through DD. https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563373469.png

[100lbStriper]

NLST Netlist Motion for Consolidation with respect to Micron was unsealed today—great 9pg read. Valid points for the short and long term. Wonder how Netlist's recent intent to transfer WD patents to ED plays into things… apparent there's quite a lot going on behind the scenes, strategy and maneuvering the ship through a fluid situation the best way possible. Certainly feels/seems things are coming to a point and will finally be dealt with and resolved, thereby moving onto the next part of the process.

"Netlist respectfully requests that the Court consolidate Micron Case 203 (MicronI) with Micron Case 294 (MicronII) for purposes of trial. Specifically, Netlist requests that the parties proceed to trial on April 22, 2024, on the two patents currently at issue in MicronII and one patent from each of the two families currently at issue in MicronI.(1) Doing so would allow for the efficient resolution of both cases between Netlist and Micron."
Read further—link below https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_563371055.png

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.671.0.pdf