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.
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
And all this does not mean that judges who are compromised step aside….even if there is a law on the books they don’t obey the laws… and who is going to make them obey the law?
There is definitely a conflict of interest the facts are there for all to see . The obvious problem is the people who allowed this process are very powerful and corruption is in their bag of tools . I never realized how corrupt the United States Patent review process is . Being involved with NLST has opened many people’s eyes to how doing something illegal is OK if you have unlimited access to large amounts of money . NLST getting in bed with SK Hynix was the only way for NLST not to go bankrupt. I thought that would end all this and NLST would be in the clear . I never realized that PTAB was so corrupt that any and all of NLST patents could be overturned because the system is so corrupt.
Stokd $NLST JOINT NOTICE REGARDING THE CURRENT STAY filed in the Micron 203 case which is under a limited stay and ready for trial.
Netlist position — "... Thus, the stay needs to be lifted and Netlist needs to bring its claims before a jury. Lifting the stay would not prejudice Micron, as the parties have already fully prepared for trial. Moreover, Micron’s latest retaliatory filing in Idaho on two of the patents-in-suit is proof that Micron is prepared to incur the significant expense of litigating Netlist’s infringement claims. The more efficient path is to reactivate this case which is ready for trial."
Micron position — "The stay should remain in place pending appeals ..."
Link to full doc— https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.215248/gov.uscourts.txed.215248.500.0.pdf
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569451530.png
Because KATHY VIDAL IS COMPROMISED and should recuse herself as outlined by senate committee
They are just being difficult. that is the problem with our legal system. guilt has been proven so why cant sentence be handed down ? the only thing they can do is attempt to delay twist and convolute the case, and as long as the courts give in to their bs it will continue. other than that as long as the court date that is set is adhered to i'll take joy in that.......
Several things come to mind about this.
There are WEEKS before Saski's vacation is planned to start. If her testimony is so important to Samsung? Why don't they just get some lawyers from each camp, the judge, and a video recording artist in a room and record whatever Samsung wishes to ask her? Wouldn't take more than an hour or two I would imagine.
Then it can be replayed for the jury if the court and all parties agree it needs to be seen.
But I don't think it is a matter or real importance to Samsung. They are just being difficult.
Stokd $NLST Just want to make sure the accurate interpretation is conveyed regarding today's order in the BOC case.
What Scarsi denied was Netlist's — "Plaintiff applies ex parte for an order shortening time on its reply deadline and committing the Court to resolve the motion without a hearing." — not Netlist's actual Motion To Quash Trial Subpoena for Gail... which is yet to be decided.
"The Court will consider Ms. Sasaki's travel situation in determining how and when to adjudicate the motion to quash. But the application is denied."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569393791.png
Don't get me wrong I'm still long, but it really sucks being a Netlist shareholder right now!
Stokd $NLST Netlist just initiated their CAFC appeal of the PTAB's IPR decision on the 339 patent.
PATENT OWNER NETLIST 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, the Order denying rehearing on the Final Written Decision, and from all underlying findings, determinations, rulings, opinions, orders, and decisions regarding the inter partes review"
—"...including whether the Final Written Decision and the Decision on Rehearing Request are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, or in excess of the Board’s jurisdiction, and any procedural irregularities associated with the review proceeding; as well as all other issues decided adversely to Netlist in any orders, decisions, rulings, and opinions."
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549229/download-documents?artifactId=IsWB4MdRbyJgmAv1xiDyPRNCzUWbPaPZBNr8Z6_U5ekuVncX35lN-j4
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569300748.png
Stokd
5:47 PM
$NLST I like this move by our legal team yesterday in IPRs of the 215 & 417 patents which are part of the 912 Samsung & Micron cases.
Same 2 of 3 judges on the PTAB panels on most of our IPRs (Jurgovan & Galligan) seem to—from what we witnessed during Orals—have it out for Sheasby & Anita, beyond Netlist as their target in general... unless suddenly both with winning records lost their craft simultaneously—something hard to believe, especially knowing what we know about the patents and efficient/willful infringement.
As backup counsel, Netlist brought on a Texas IP firm and their partner (Michael Heim of Heim,Payne&Chorush) who "has a degree in electrical engineering, and early in his career, SERVED THREE YEARS AS A PATENT EXAMINER AT THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE where he specialized in examining patent applications involving electrical communications and computer software and hardware."
Being proactive👍🏼... hopefully he provides insight and guidance, with a bit of influence.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569279581.png
to me the only good news is so far we got a court date on 4-29-24. lets hope it doesnt get delayed.
that whole room has vested interests and 7 plus figure bank accounts, go figure......
Its been soooo long since we've had any good news..
Kennedy is the same Senator that did not want the CAT system implemented for more transparency in the market basically supporting Citadel and Virtu.
Guy speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Whatever he has a vested interest in. JMO
robcobb
6:01 AM
$NLST With Samsungs renewed motion (597)to stay the 463 case , I think we are about to find out which side of the fence Judge Gilstrap is on when it comes to the PTAB.With words like (well reasoned ,thorough opinions of the PTAB)and (while the Federal Circuit addresses the challenges to the PTABs fine work) made by Samsung in the motion.I wonder what Judge Gilstrap thinks of the wording in this motion? What decision will he make regarding this motion? I know what I think it will be!
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569169084.png
According to Stokd's chart, the ruling on the 912 patent (Caim 16) is due by the 19th of this month. That's for Samsung court case #00293.
when is the ruling on the 912?
anyone invested in NLST should boycott Samsung products..
Samsung STILL trying to get Gilstrap to stay the #0463 case!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.211544/gov.uscourts.txed.211544.597.0.pdf
SAMSUNG’S RENEWED MOTION TO STAY
In well-reasoned, thorough opinions, the PTAB has now found unpatentable all of the
claims that the jury found infringed in this case. Although Netlist presumably will appeal these
adverse decisions (it has filed a notice of appeal for one of the patents), it would be highly
inefficient for the Court and the parties to continue to litigate the post-trial motions in this case
while the Federal Circuit addresses Netlist’s challenges to the PTAB’s fine work. Accordingly,
Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) renew their past motions to stay the case pending
final resolution of the IPRs involving the asserted patents.
Followers
|
305
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
9
|
Posts (Total)
|
25067
|
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: |