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.
WO is me.......... one of these days......or in this case, one of those days..........
As co-founder and CEO of Netlist, a small company that develops advanced memory
technologies, https://innovationalliance.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Netlist-PREVAIL-PERA-Letter-of-Support589.pdf
and one from 7-30-24
https://netlist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Netlist-RESTORE-Statement.pdf
yes i know, my fault!!! i would never said that you will be rewarded handsomely someday
someday
i mean the more time we spend here waiting the more we wont be lol. until the dog runs we just waste away or go stir crazy in my case!!! you have diversions, my dumbass went all in. yes i know, my fault!!!
bet ya a dollar you wont be what cha mean? I think this someday will be a hundred dollar stock . I have no plans on selling any before $30.
and really with what i make playing the others I post I see no reason to sell then. :+) thats of course i keep my eye sight lol
Heck with the money NLST is going reiceve they could build thier own chip factory.
bet ya a dollar you wont be lol as hard when that 6 turns to a 7 !!! lol !!! but yeah, i'm here till the end as well.....
That’s good info. Thanks
lol i made up the time after 6 yrs for a laugh but I'll stick it out to the end.
alls i can say is your a better man than i !!!
6 yrs 3 months 12 days 13hrs 18 minutes and 32 seconds and waiting.
i'm not a tec guy either but what your saying is common sense, and time is of the essence..........
Thanks for the info, especially the visual. I counted the days per segments, and it looks like another 1.5 to 2 years, if we have to go to the end.
If that is correct, then I'd vote for settling early, for less than the total $$ of the eventual ultimate prize.
Technology changes too fast. It's possible that 2 years from now a different technology approach could show up that will get around the patents.
I have no technology knowledge that shows it will happen, but it has happened in the past.
As Steve McQueen once said: Take the sugar and run.
for those wondering about the timeline for CAFC appeals. The chart has the days for each process
https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/RulesProceduresAndForms/FilingResources/Life_of_an_Appeal_Narrative_and_flowchart.pdf
no, its too bright and you have to look away, but you know its there!!! word up......... and gm to ya......
you seen the light my friend?
this is one of those times i have to say, any time soon for any one of them is ok with me!!!
you'll be just fine once this is over!!! just remember, one of these days..........
might as well run now. if they cant delay, they sure as hell dont want to step in front of a jury.
lol!!! let me ponder that for a few...........
Yes that would be a big help but just remember the cash register keeps ringing!
Liking this judge so far. Maybe these attorneys are leaving Nego. because they know there will be no settlement and their time could be better put to use on more important matters? Just a thought
Well then quit please...
It still frustrates me that Samsung can continue to sell product in the U.S. without a license. if we had a law that prohibted it this case would have been settled yrs ago.
right i was talking about the two attorneys
Time will tell....... it always does........
I hope its not more delaytactics
That’s two of them withdrawing.
How should one take this Information? Are they folding and making a deal?
Time will tell
Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (2:22-cv-00203)
District Court, E.D. Texas
503
Sep 17, 2024
Main Document
Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63378313/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/?order_by=desc
TOMKiLA.....Patent 912, Samsung case, the trial is approaching and here is my hypothesis.
First of all, let's analyze the data from the Micron case which affects two of the three patents that will be cited at the end of October.
“ involved two Netlist patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912 and 11,093,417. The infringing products were all Micron DDR4 RDIMMs and DDR4 LRDIMMs”
“The amount of damages awarded by the jury covers infringement by Micron from April 2021 to May 2024 for the ‘912 patent and from August 2021 to May 2024 for the ‘417 patent”
• the 417 LRDIMM patent worth 20m $ •The 912 LRDIMM and rdimm patents worth $425m
about $140 million in damages p. 912 per year per micron (150 if we also consider p.417)
math helps us for two reasons, samsung is the first company in the business with a value double of micron and then there is also another lrdimm patent cited that however little, it could be worth between 30 and 50 million $.
912 damages start from April 2021 and damages will be cited up to November 2024 so a timing of 42 months against the 35 months of the micron case, more or less the same thing also with the other 2 patents.
samsung could be liable for $220/250 million in damages 912 per year (12 months) * 3.5x = potential $770 m - $875m damages 912 + $80/90 m damages lrdimm patents.
So the damages could be around a range of $8/900 million. We take away 20% and we find around a range of damages between $700 and $750 million. This data will surprise many shareholders but it is exactly what we could read in 6 weeks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Netlist_/comments/1fixnsp/patent_912_samsung_case_the_trial_is_approaching/?share_id=qWrgsP-qNcdzSMc6FVw5Q&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1
TOMKiLA $NLST In the first half of 2024, already 40 billion dram revenue and 90/95 billion dram revenue is expected in 2024. next year with the action of many new products including cxl and the exponential growth of hbm, dram revenue will be more than 110 billion $. Netlist is accumulating billions of $ in royalties. You will see with your own eyes the impact of the next two patent cases samsung and micron.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_586248082.png
NLST 🔥Just dropped in 293 case with Oct trial on 912 ptnt is Samsung's Renewed Stay Motion—DENIED by new Judge Schroeder🔥
Occurred Sept 9 but parties had a week to make redactions to the sealed doc, so order just dropped now.
"Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Renewed Motion to Stay Pending Appeal of the PTAB’s IPR Final Written Decisions Invalidating the Asserted Claims of the 912 and 417 Patents. In the motion, Samsung asks the Court to stay this case pending the appeal of the final written decisions in Samsung’s petitions for IPR of the patents at issue. The Court holds that the motion should be DENIED."
"Almost all of Samsung’s arguments repeat positions already considered and rejected. The only difference between this motion to stay and the last motion to stay is the fact that the PTAB has now found the 417 Patent to be invalid in addition to the 912 Patent, which is unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed in previous denials.
Full doc link https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.789.1.pdf
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_586237519.png
Thanks Striper!
pre trial is still waiting to be scheduled......... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.770.0.pdf
Any news on the pre-trial hearing? Thanks
McKool Smith Secures $192 Million Patent Infringement Verdict on Behalf of Mojo Mobility Against Samsung
https://www.wvnews.com/news/around_the_web/partners/pr_newswire/subject/legal_issues/mckool-smith-secures-192-million-patent-infringement-verdict-on-behalf-of-mojo-mobility-against-samsung/article_673e0480-c436-58ba-829e-0a179173b1f8.html
Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (2:22-cv-00203)
District Court, E.D. Texas
502
Sep 16, 2024
UNOPPOSED MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Micron Semiconductor Products Inc, Micron Technology Texas LLC, Micron Technology, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hill, Jack Wesley) (Entered: 09/16/2024)
Main Document
Withdraw as Attorney
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63378313/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/?order_by=desc
NLST Part-2
Samsung’s new basis for appeal is far less substantive than previous issues on appeal, and carry substantially less weight as appeal courts give broad discretion to lower courts/Scarsi, especially when it comes to jury bias and jury instructions.
So the fact that they can appeal gives me no concern given what they have left to appeal. With laws regarding jury bias and what it actually takes for a court to find that any bias would have led to different trial results, I believe there is no way the 9th Circuit can/will rule in Samsung’s favor on settled law they cannot overcome.
For perspective, it's key to differentiate between effort and possibility of success. Samsung attorneys are paid to try anything/everything, but more attempts don't equate to having a better chance translating to success.
The more they try the worse it gets for them, naturally, as they use up all possible and impossible options bordering on ludicrous—as we’ve witnessed from Samsung through litigation.
Stokd $NLST Part-1
Important to understand the basis for an appeal and any changes from previous appeal in the same case. In BOC case, prior appeal was regarding ambiguity of Sec 6.2 of the contract and Scarsi’s judgment that Samsung breached and Netlist terminated it lawfully.
First BOC trial was for minimal cover damages, but bigger key implications were that Samsung is no longer licensed, which is worth significantly more in relation to our infringement cases. The judgment which Samsung appealed was from Scarsi and not jury trial.
Given the previous appeal matters are now resolved in Netlist’s favor through jury trial/verdict, and presuming Scarsi affirms with final judgment, Samsung’s next appeal will be based on farfetched and manufactured nonsense of jury bias and erroneous jury instructions.
And overturning a jury verdict is way more difficult than Scarsi’s judgment in prior appeal—which led to remand for jury trial on aspects that again concluded in Netlist’s favor—think about that.
Don't think their getting off cheap at least without a deal to do business. The road has been too long!!
robcobb
51m
$NLST This is only a (speculative observation),but I think Judge Gilstrap realized the BOC final decision was not going to be announced by the Sept 9 trial date.I also think he didn’t have an opening on his calendar that would get the trial moving forward fast enough after the BOC was announced ,so enter Judge Schroeder that had an opening on his calendar that would expedite the case.We also know mediation is still going on as per my observance on Aug.26 and through a document that said a zoom mediation occurred on Sept 12 . I am not sure what exactly they are negotiating because it was all done in back chambers when I attended .All I know is each company had representatives at the mediation, and the lawyers would come back in the courtroom and give them information from the back chambers,as to what I don’t know.The only thing I heard all day was Jason and McKean talking, with McKean asking for concessions that he wanted at trial in the five hours I sat there.Soon clarity!GLLs
Stokd $NLST To clarify, patent infringement litigation is different than all other litigation like BOC. Distinctions particularly in our situation where a contract/license dispute with Samsung carries implications on parallel patent infringement litigation between parties.
The concept of ultimate finality at the CAFC only applies to patent infringement. Unlike our non-patent BOC case whose appeal goes to 9th Cir.
In patent cases, Dist Crt final judgment is not ultimately final till CAFC rules, given complexities around validity/PTAB and damages, which are not paid till after CAFC but continue accruing with post judgment interest—as awarded to Netlist in won trials.
Since BOC case is non-patent and not for damages, a verdict/judgment that Samsung is unlicensed will stand after final judgment, with implications on parties infringement litigation.
Samsung can appeal to 9th Cir, but will continue infringing unlicensed accruing damages through the appeal process, without holding up other cases.
Federal Circuit Rejects Google’s Bid To Shrink ITC Jurisdiction over Post-Importation Acts of Indirect Infringement
https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2024-09-12-federal-circuit-rejects-googles-bid-shrink-itc
NLST Just look at what Gilstrap wrote in a footnote at the bottom of Aug 26th order regarding Samsung's request for clarification on the license issue. Clearly acknowledging Samsung's manipulative approach and again stressing that his court abides by Scarsi's judgments and not by what Samsung claims nor their intent to appeal.
"What exactly would “finally” dispose of the issue—whether jury verdict, final judgment, or a ruling from the Ninth Circuit—seems to vary depending on what situation would benefit Samsung at the time of filing any of its many motions to stay this case pending those parallel proceedings. The Court notes that despite Samsung’s many attempts to stay this case, the status quo has not changed since Samsung I: the disposition in the Central District of California is still that Samsung breached the JDLA and that Netlist properly terminated the same. The Court makes no finding independent of the dispositions of the Central District of California as to these issues."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.768.0.pdf
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas
DOC 787..........
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.787.0_1.pdf
Stokd $NLST Only manipulative FUD with an agenda the likes of Samsung would fail to acknowledge that when a case/trial is over and final judgment is issued, the matter is considered resolved/closed and treated as such by all judicial branches.
FILING AN APPEAL DOES NOT STOP OR DELAY THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER
Samsung can "claim" whatever they want—as we've seen through litigation—but the truth of the matter and reality is that all other litigation will proceed as though Samsung has no license until overturned or remanded by appeal court.
For all intents and purposes, if Scarsi denies JMOL and issues Final Judgment in BOC case, Samsung will be legally considered UNLICENSED going forward.
The distinction between BOC scenario and PTAB decisions on patent validity is that the PTAB is not part of the judicial branch and has no binding authority or preclusive effect over District Court unless affirmed by CAFC. In the non patent BOC case, final judgment stands till appeal court rules otherwise.
Followers
|
304
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
15
|
Posts (Total)
|
25374
|
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/
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |