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.
Stokd
7:29 PM
$NLST This is far from over and the CAFC will reconcile.
Something to add is that in every one of our infringement cases against Micron & Samsung, they argue in defense through their Answer to the Complaint—1st brief of the case—that Netlist failed to comply with its RAND obligation... meaning to license the patents at RAND rates. Though that obligation is based on the patents being standard essential—which later Netlist prevailed through Summary Judgment that they're not standard essential, therefore removing obligation to license at Fair Reasonable And Non Discriminatory terms—which don't apply to infringers, especially the willful.
But the point is that Samsung and Micron pushed and argued for Netlist to license what are now "invalid" patents, at the time Netlist filed the lawsuits. Then when Netlist disagreed that they deserve or are obliged to RAND, the same infringers that wanted to pay for the patents decided all of a sudden to challenge that they are obvious and worthless.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_569958377.png
BolliverShagnasty
7:15 PM
$NLST the good news is this is the beginning of the end of the P tab. Netlist will appeal this. We will get different judges when we appeal and they will uphold the previous verdict. This was just an attempt to buy some time for Google and Samsung.
Now for the good news. We have several patents already validated and since the Google case is stayed anyway which is where the majority of the 912 claim is, it doesn't really matter right now. We can focus on the claims that have already been validated, nail down the infringement and the other patents can still be used as Leverage for settlements because at the end of the day all of these infringers know that the federal appeals court will probably reverse some of these rulings if not all. We will see a narrowing of the case in gilstraps court and let's see what the jury Awards! In the meantime judge Gilstrap is the wild card and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him issue a ruling on royalties.
https://stocktwits.com/BolliverShagnasty/message/569957225
very nice, thank you!
yes its mentioned in one of the document filings, or court transcripts, though i dont recall which one. as you know i do read everything but unfortunately i dont keep track of where everything is at nor need too. but i will say one thing from all that i've read pertaining to strap and ptab. straps verbal demeanor loathes what ptab stands for.
Really. Ok. I wasn’t aware he forbid the mentioning of PTAB rulings in court proceedings.
Stokd $NLST The fact that:
- Sk Hynix settled and paid for a license to use Netlist patents—including those invalidated by PTAB.
- Samsung paid for a license to use Netlist patents through the JDLA contact—including those invalidated by PTAB.
- Micron wanted to license Netlist patents at FRAND rates—including those invalidated by PTAB.
- Google was caught using Netlist IP during a random server inspections—which lead to the 912 patent case against them.
- All of the above were using Netlist's IP/technology—infringing for years.
Yet we're supposed to believe that all of Netlist's key and valuable patents that are currently being litigated in District Court against the infringers—912/DDR5(054 & 918)/HBM(060 & 160)—are invalid, unpatentable, and worthless/useless. As if Netlist for 20 years has invented junk, yet was worthy of stealing...YEAH RIGHT! You can't make it make sense because the PTAB and their biased and unqualified Administrative Patent Judges deliberately don't make sense.
Rant over
91 Apr 17, 2024 ORDER granting 86 Motion to Expedite Briefing on Netlist's Motion to Strike Micron's Updated Witness List (Dkt. 85). Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 4/17/2024. (NKL) (Entered: 04/17/2024)
Main Document
Order on Motion to Expedite
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
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....
$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......
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.
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
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
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.
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
as much as it sux in time we will prevail.
|
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
