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.
Case 2:22-cv-00293-JRG Document 698 Filed 03/29/24
Samsung's Prior Art Notification
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.698.0.pdf
According to some, Prior art notifications are often filed in patent suits, sometimes just before a settlement agreement is reached.
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas 698
Mar 29, 2024
Main Document
Notice (Other) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861664/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294)
District Court, E.D. Texas 78
Mar 29, 2024
Main Document
Notice (Other) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?order_by=desc
yeah...... what he said..........
Bowlsketball
54m
$NLST I'm a long-time reader and first time poster. I have been invested in Netlist for few years. I know the last few months have been a slog with regards to the share price, but I am feeling real good about what is in store for the next couple months:
- Micron trial starting at the end of April for the same patents we already won against Samsung
- BOC trial against Samsung starting in May. Scarsi is aware of Samsung's shenanigans and they have put themselves in a hole.
- Gilstrap will release the ongoing royalty payment for the previous Samsung/Netlist trial after the BOC concludes. This will be huge and could provide much-needed relief to Netlist's balance sheet
Along with these three items, I expect revenue for the 1st quarter to be in the $40 - $50 million range based on Gail's comments during the previous earnings call.
I think all of these things will push Netlist's stock price to a minimum of $4 with potential to go to $10 - $15.
Go Netlist!
Stokd
2:24 PM
$NLST Just look at the image... what a travesty!!!
"In 91.8% of petitions, PTAB management did not assign three APJs with the correct educational background and experience to panels. That is an incredible number and shows that the PTAB has no expertise at all, let alone the agency expertise of the USPTO."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567805892.png
Stokd
2:18 PM
$NLST Nice find! It's why CAFC matters.
-"The PTAB is an appalling failure, invalidating 84% of the patents it fully adjudicates, thereby unleashing massive predatory infringement of small entity patents by huge corporations."
-"but what is their experience in the field? Applying the belief that a law degree coupled with technical or scientific education somehow provides USPTO agency expertise is a bridge too far and disrespectful to inventors."
-"Most APJs have little to no work experience in the field of their degree. Generally, they get their undergrad and go straight to law school. Yet, even without experience in the field, it is their technical or scientific degree alone that qualifies them to adjudicate the validity of our nation’s most important patented inventions."
-"Each PTAB tribunal consists of three APJs. You might assume it is imperative that all three would, at the very least, have a degree in the patented technology. This is not the case in 91.8% of PTAB petitions."
https://innovationgadfly.com/hopelessly-inexperienced-ptab-judges-are-destroying-u-s-innovation/
Stokd
1:35 PM
$NLST Regarding the letter posted today that was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing the nomination of Vidal for USPTO Director... around the same time another letter was sent in opposition — (1st pg in pic & link for rest) "We are inventors..." --- "Together we hold more 7,000 patents covering a wide range of important fields including AI, IoT, 5G, power generation, energy storage, environment, materials, transportation, and biotechnology. However, we are struggling to compete ever since the USPTO has been shaped and controlled by corporate interests under the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). In particular, the USPTO has shifted its focus from promoting innovation to revoking previously approved patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). As big tech and China advances, U.S inventors are increasingly blocked from competing by our very own patent office, which has been heavily politicized and influenced by the trillion-dollar corporations."
https://usinventor.org/wp-content/uploads/Kathi-Vidal-Letter-from-Inventors.pdf
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567803037.png
NLST at least this gives us some hope that the Court of Appeals will see our pahtents much differently than at "The Kangaroo Court" known as the PTAB. https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567797831.png
$NLST Check out this letter dated 1/5/22 from https://prosperousamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/220105-USPTO-nominee-ltr.pdf They new what Vidal would do as the Director of the USPTO. I urge everyone to file SEC complaints at https://www.sec.gov/oiea/Complaint.html. This corruption must be exposed. We can't let them get away with this!!!
FrankFromYahoo
3:01 AM
$NLST Just an example! Look at the ongoing claim 16/912 IPR. Samsung did nothing else than argue that claim 16 is based on (a mere) combination of two prior art elements, from the fact that NLST argues that these two references are not eligible (because not published before the priority date). This CAFC judgement definitely reduces/eliminates the margin of the PTAB to invalidate a patent based on obviousness resulting from the combination of two or more prior art elements. Petitioner and PTAB must find additional hard fact argument. Not enough anymore: the mere existence of two or more prior art elements.
NLST I don’t know if any of you have previously cited or even seen this but it’s just beautiful to me. Enjoy!
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/03/obviousness-motivation-combine.html
https://stocktwits.com/AlyGatorTheGreat/message/567773919
its all bs. remember they also said they were ready to go in 1-2 weeks and we acknowledged them ok and then yoder screamed from his death bed no no make a scheduling conflict it'll work just like my covid call out, but i forgot to get a doctors note that time. this will happen soon enough, the stupid card only works for so long.........
they just want to delay and delay and will say anything to accomplish that. they know they lost and will use anything within the options of litigations to do it. thats what happens when ya got money to throw around. like the old saying goes, why ya think there do'n that, ''because they can''.
like i said before, i just hope i live long enough, but i do know they will win. its the when we getting paid part i'm concerned about. balls in their court !!!
Samsung is saying that the volume of disputed items that the pretrial has to cover will be so huge, that it would not give their counsel enough time to prepare their case for the actual trial, which is now supposed to start on May 14th (8 days later).
As far as the April 8th date that Samsung wants is concerned? Samsung is being coy. When Samsung petitioned the court for a trial continuance (after the Yoder incapacitation was revealed - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/469/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/), Netlist agreed to a small continuance. They went on to outline the weeks in which a continuance would not work for them (other trial conflicts).
NETLIST’S STATEMENT
At noon on Monday, March 11, Samsung reported on Mr. Yoder’s health
emergency, stated that he will not be able to continue on the case at all, and
informed Netlist of its desire for a “1-2 week” continuance while an additional trial
member is added to its team. Netlist readily agreed, but explained that any
extension longer than a week was not possible because of three other back-to-back
trial commitments in April and May.
April 29th Full Jury Trial
Following Week:
Final Pre Trial Conference BOC case
May 6th
Following Week:
Full Jury Trial BOC
May 14th
NLST Remember that Samsung just yesterday objected to May 6th—"Samsung’s only objection is to moving the final pretrial conference to May 6, when both parties are available on April 8 (which Netlist’s counsel requested as the trial date just last week) and April 22. There is good reason that May 6 is unworkable:"—and would now seem, apparently by their own admission in picture below, to be in a bad place/f%&ked!
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567753796.png
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567756065.png
its great news ! cant wait to get in court !!!
NLST Netlist gets their way! 🔥 "The Court, having considered the materials and arguments submitted by Plaintiff, Netlist, Inc. in its Ex Parte Application to Reset the Final Pre-Trial Conference Due to Conflict with Previously Set Trial (“the Application”), and the declaration of Jason Sheasby submitted in support thereof, and having found good cause, hereby ORDERS as follows:
The Application is GRANTED. The Final Pre-Trial Conference is set for May 6, 2024, at 9:00am 2:00 p.m."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567753176.png
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.485.0.pdf
as long as nothing gets delayed i'm with ya 100%!!!
yes i see lol !!!
nice, but you could of got them cheaper!!!! j/k'n... but ya coulda'''
our mark scarsi from the boc case................
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mark-scarsi-hunter-biden-tax-charges-case-rcna128666
Stokd
42m
$NLST I just post examples as they come up wherever/whatever I'm reading, not searching in particular.
Another entry in the "PTAB got it wrong" series — 'Victory for Virtek Patent as CAFC Schools PTAB on Proper Motivation to Combine Analysis' — "“This case involves nothing other than an assertion that because two coordinate systems were disclosed in a prior art reference and were therefore ‘known,’ that satisfies the motivation to combine analysis. That is an error as a matter of law. It does not suffice to simply be known. A reason for combining must exist.” – CAFC opinion"
"In a precedential decision authored by Chief Judge Moore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday partially reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that certain claims of Virtek Vision International’s patent on a method for aligning a laser projector were unpatentable, finding the Board erred as a matter of law in its analysis."
https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/03/27/victory-virtek-patent-cafc-schools-ptab-motivation-combine/id=174700/
just doooooooo ittttttt!!!!!!!!!!
NLST short interest down again this last report.
Feb 29 - 9,643,891 shares short
Mar 15 - 9,294,621 shares short
Down - 349,270 shares (-3.62%)
|
Followers
|
307
|
Posters
|
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
14
|
Posts (Total)
|
25993
|
|
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
