The more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.
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.
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.
Not able to read all that link but Centripetal did lose on appeal.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1634.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.5-11-2021_1775952.pdf
My primary purpose in posting was the ruling for 3 years of infringement in a jury trial. I'm glad you posted some additional info, but Netlist v google has already been down that road. This explains it well enough from SA:
Netlist - High Stakes Patent Litigation
Mar. 03, 2021
Summary
After 12 years of winding through the legal system, Netlist finally can proceed with patent litigation against Google.
Netlist is also suing SK Hynix for patent infringement in the pro-patent Western District of Texas. Markman hearing is on March 4, 2021. Jury trial is set for July 6.
This litigation will allow Netlist to become a gatekeeper for the DDR5 memory standard, much like QCOM is in the cellular field.
Thesis
Note: This is outside our normal focus on biotech stocks. A member of another forum we are part of brought this stock to our attention. We got interested in the stock for its strong risk-reward profile. Netlist (OTC: NLST) is suing several large manufacturers of server memory products for infringement of its patents. Most notably, Google, SK Hynix, and Inphi.
Research
This is straight from the investor portion of Netlist’s website describing the company’s mission: Netlist provides high-performance SSDs and modular memory subsystems to enterprise customers in diverse industries. The Company's NVMe SSD portfolio provides industry-leading performance offered in multiple capacities and form factors. HybriDIMM, Netlist's next-generation storage class memory product, addresses the growing need for real-time analytics in Big Data applications, in-memory databases, high-performance computing and advanced data storage solutions. Netlist also manufactures a line of specialty and legacy memory products to storage customers, appliance customers, system builders and cloud and datacenter customers. Netlist holds a portfolio of patents in the areas of server memory, hybrid memory, storage class memory, rank multiplication and load reduction.
Netlist has been in litigation with Google since 2009 over allegations that Google infringed upon Netlist’s seminal 912 patent. It is a hardware patent for processing commands in an LRDIMM memory module using rank multiplication. Google signed an NDA to take a look at it. It passed on using the technology described in the patent. Netlist alleges that Google infringed the patent by building servers using the 912 patent technology. Netlist sued Google on December 2009 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The judge in the case ordered a random cross section of servers to be examined which showed that Google indeed was using technology described in the 912 patent. Google then asserted that the patent was invalid. In 2010 Google requested an Inter Partes Reexamination of the 912 patent by the USPTO’s (United States Patent and Trademark Office) PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board). While the reexamination was going on the Northern District Court granted a joint request made by both companies to stay the 912 patent infringement lawsuit until the USPTO made its findings. On January 2019 the PTAB upheld the validity of Netlist’s 912 patent. In April 2019 Google appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In June 2020 the US Court of Appeals upheld the PTAB’s decision on the validity of the 912 patent. Because of the Covid-19 pandemic Google was granted a 6 month extension to decide if it wanted to appeal this decision to the United States Supreme Court. Google did not choose to appeal. On February 16, 2021 Netlist moved to lift the stay in the Northern District of California so the patent infringement lawsuit could continue. The Court granted the request and ordered that both Netlist and Google shall appear for a telephone Case Management Conference on March 11, 2021. At least 7 calendar days prior to the conference, the parties shall meet and confer and file a Joint Case Management Conference Settlement that sets forth the status of the case and proposes a schedule.
So why is the 912 patent a big deal? It is a seminal patent. A seminal patent is defined as a patent that describes an invention so impactful that it creates or shifts the technology space. Netlist believes that the teachings of the 912 patent can be found in various DDR3 and DDR4 server DIMMs (Dual Inline Memory Module) as well as future products that will be produced under the DDR5 server DIMM standards currently being established by the industry. Furthermore, Netlist asserts that the 912 patent enabled Google to build servers with high capacity and rapid memory that allowed said servers to store an entire Oracle database in memory which allowed lightning fast search results. The 912 patent played a large part in Google’s dominance in search. Right now, it is not a question whether Google infringed the 912 patent. That has already been established. Now, Google is at the stage where it can settle with Netlist or go to a jury trial to determine damages. As for the damages, Netlist will most likely use a hedonic pricing model to determine the damages. Hedonic pricing looks at both the product itself (internal factors) and the environment (external factors) in determining pricing. In this case Netlist will argue that the 912 patent established Google’s dominance in search, which allowed monopolist profits that funded Google’s entire ecosystem. While at the same time, Google’s infringement of the patent prevented Netlist from establishing itself in the server memory marketplace. Netlist will most likely seek billions in damages. Also, the prospect of treble damages is in play as Netlist will allege willful infringement on Google’s part. The most likely scenario is Google will settle the case rather than risk going in front of a jury. A settlement would include a large lump sum plus licensing of the patent going forward.
if otc is up to date thats about 8MM shares(5%), headed in the right direction.
Remember this CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS v CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. link back:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=160597164
Up date
Cisco has been denied a new trial after it suffered a record $1.9 billion patent case loss against Virginian start-up Centripetal Networks in October 2020.
The Nasdaq-listed tech company submitted a motion for a new trial on November 2 2020, regarding the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s rulings on US patent number 9,500,176 and 9,203,806. It also asked the court to reconsider willfulness and damages in the prior ruling.
Cisco argued that the court's decision on fixing the date of its first infringement was sua sponte - or that the court had taken notice of an issue on its own motion without prompting or suggestion from the parties involved.
However, the court said that Cisco’s damages expert, Dr. Stephen Becker, agreed that June 20, 2017 would have been the first date of infringement “for at least some of the patents at issue.”
In a response to Cisco’s motion for a new trial, district judge Henry Morgan Jr. denied Cisco’s pleas and reinstated the court’s prior ruling on March 17. He claimed the court will enter final judgment in favour of Centripetal Networks.
The timeline
Centripetal Networks first filed a complaint against Cisco Systems in February 2018, alleging infringement of 11 of its US cybersecurity patents.
In response, Cisco requested inter partes reviews for nine of the patents. The US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated claims on several of the patents.
Proceedings went ahead on five of the patents not under inter partes review: US patent numbers 9,137,205, 9,203,806, 9,500,176, 9,686,193 and 9,917,856.
Judge Morgan issued a ruling in favour of Centripetal, finding that Cisco willfully infringed four of the five asserted patents, awarding Centripetal $1.9 billion in damages, as well as a running royalty of 10% on the apportioned sales of Cisco products related to the patents for three years.
https://www.worldipreview.com/news/cisco-request-for-new-trial-denied-after-1-9-billion-loss-21159
Color me crazy but when good news hits and stock is at a solid support level, I buy.
Also speaks loudly to truth coming from NLST management. Bulls know that but makes Bears look even worse.
Possible move over $6 that’s great news these guys are going after the important stuff.
Yes! they get to pick after years of slowly building their reputations
Another slam dunk star for Netlist.
Let me remember that this portion of the convo started with a question about people talking up this week as something could happen. I speculated maybe that 14 day thing. Perhaps those looking for something this week don’t know about the intervening rights stipulation.
Quote below, what I hear is mediator must report when, what happened and will they meet again. I’m thinking that report would be on the docket (?).
“Within 14 days of the close of each mediation session, the mediator must report the date the session was held, whether the case settled in whole or in part, and whether any follow up is scheduled to the ADR”
Yeah it sounds like the public will have access.
NLST is fully reporting not non reporting pink. No worries
Do you mean Rule 15c2-11? https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-212
Prior to today’s amendments, certain of the rule’s previous exceptions permitted broker-dealers to maintain a quoted market for an issuer’s security in perpetuity, in the absence of current and publicly available information about the issuer, and even when the issuer no longer exists. Recognizing the ease with which information sharing takes place today, the amendments generally prohibit broker-dealers from publishing quotations for an issuer’s security when issuer information is not current and publicly available, subject to certain exceptions. Investors who have access to current and publicly available issuer information are better equipped to make informed decisions about how to allocate their capital and to counteract misinformation that can proliferate through promotions and other channels.
The amendments also are designed to enhance the efficiency of the OTC market and facilitate capital formation for issuers for which information is current and publicly available. Specifically, the amendments add new exceptions for certain OTC securities that may be less susceptible to fraud or manipulation, such as actively traded securities of well-capitalized issuers, and expand the scope of market participants that may comply with the rule’s required review of issuer information.
"Pink No Information" nope https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/NLST/overview
That is from @Tomkila on ymb.
Good uncomplicated story: AmerAznMac12 hours ago
@Tomkila I totally agree. I only found netlist just recently from a friend as I’m super new to all of this but after showing the netlist vs google case to a patent lawyer friend, she said netlist pretty much has it in the bag. So I purchased what I could afford right now. Hoping payout is big!
Could be,
that's Jason's job and he thinks he can speed things up. Keeping in mind the court has to herd the cats!
Ford announces joint venture with SK Innovation to manufacture EV battery cells in U.S.
PUBLISHED THU, MAY 20 20219:34 AM EDTUPDATED THU, MAY 20 202112:26 PM EDT
Michael Wayland
@MIKEWAYLAND
Ford plans to form a joint venture with South Korean battery maker SK Innovation that will eventually manufacture battery cells for electric vehicles in the U.S.
The companies on Thursday announced they have signed a memorandum of understanding for a joint venture that will be called BlueOvalSK.
Could be from info in post 6527. The bit about 14 days to report:
Concluding Mediation
Quote:
At the close of mediation, the mediator and the parties shall jointly determine whether it would be appropriate to schedule a follow up.81 A follow up could include written or telephonic reports that the parties might make to one another or to the mediator, exchange of specified kinds of information, or another mediation session.82 Within 14 days of the close of each mediation session, the mediator must report the date the session was held, whether the case settled in whole or in part, and whether any follow up is scheduled to the ADR Unit.83
As with the ENE Process, a mediator cannot impose a settlement and cannot attempt to coerce a party to accept any proposed terms.84 If no settlement is reached, the case remains on the litigation track with all formal discovery, disclosure, and motion practices preserved.85
Good point, they may have reasons unrelated to this case. Companies x? and now the DOJ are interested in suing google.
Thoughts? Amended Infringement Contentions 6/18/21 Seems to me it was google asked for this. If memory serves it has to do with reducing the time of infringement(?) with the goal to limit discovery. Some say g would only do this if they believed they could win the amendment/have little consequence even if they lose. If g doubted they could win/sorta win, they would move to settle as quickly as possible i.e. not drag it out with months of processing the contentions.
I disagree with this because it assumes g will act rationally or as rationally as an average human would. I think g's arrogance, partly due to war chest, will delay as long as they can and or until the jig is up and still have a pathway to not go to trial. If anything g will gather data noting SK win and what Netlist wants to date
And when time gets short if they think they can do better to settle they will.
Nothing like proving government’s case creating a chip division. Price for purchase from Daylas’s mouth to Sheasby’s ears. lol
Yes cash is unequivocal.
Google bought part of a company in a settlement. I'm not thinking of that in particular just an example. Personally I think Hong would reject giving up part of his company. Jason Sheasby is in part marketed as finding creative solutions in settlements, just saying I'm not fixated on any one thing coming out of Netlist's eventual victory. Ideally lots of cash though.
Looks like August:
Wesley2 hours ago
Normally 90 days but they chose after intervening rights ruling that's August.
Got lucky looks like 90 days tops:
stock_revealer2 hours ago
Found out the timing. 90 days from mediation date so that's March 25...so 90 days is June 25.
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/alternative-dispute-resolution-for-patent-cases-the-eastern.html
Dwayne28 minutes ago
I think there is a limit on time allowed for mediation, not sure though.
Well maybe I’ve got too much confidence in Sheasby. Seems to me he took this case because he saw big bucks. I think Hong has said “billions” that’s 2 or more but unsure of the form it will take. I’m already
satisfied with the trade anything more will be icing.
So any thoughts on that being the catalyst?
Imo the bump is due to yesterday’s pacer
lol!
We know Jason Sheasby promotes his skill as a closer, with big $ wins for plaintiffs, “in a single year or 12 month period” with his company’s bio.
In an over 10 yr saga for Netlist can we all agree it’s time for a single year wrap up?
Thank you choo choo! 2 weeks, maybe they will just ask the Hong what "less exposure" means in dollars.
"Is this the push down before news breaks?
I don't know, but I find it interesting Micron has not responded to Netlist suing them. Perhaps they listened to NLST CC. Hong outlined Micron's position as slightly less exposure but weaker than SK's was. Maybe there has been some contact. If not we should hear soon that Micron does what? Counter sues or?
Anybody know how long the defendant has to respond to a law suit once filed in court. They can't leave the court hanging.
silvia1 hour ago
I do expect to hear something from this guy, as time goes by, in the way of a motion or such just common sense. Now if we don't hear anything perhaps the next communication will be a settlement or see you in court.
Does this sound like a guy who collects a paycheck without adding anything to the conversation?
Described in Chambers USA as having “a remarkable ability to come up with creative solutions,” Jason Sheasby focuses on complex litigation, patents, trade secrets, antitrust, regulatory compliance and internal investigations. His experience spans a wide range of industries, including bio/pharmaceuticals, medical devices, semiconductors, telecommunications, electronics, higher education and healthcare.
As an example of the wide diversity of his practice, in a single year, Jason was hired by a client post-trial to successfully reverse the largest patent verdict in history ($2.5 billion in a medicinal chemistry matter) and also obtained a $400 million jury verdict against the largest semiconductor manufacturer in the world.
In another 12-month period, Jason obtained findings of infringement, validity and willfulness in each of three separate jury trials, with verdicts totaling more than $800 million. In the most recent one, he secured a $500 million verdict against Apple for damages over a period of 19 months in the first patent jury trial of the COVID-19 pandemic. The jury also found that Apple was willful and must pay an ongoing royalty. During this same period, Jason obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a multi-count antitrust and unfair competition complaint that accused his client and others of participating in a cartel and group boycott.
Also on going recognition in the press:
NEWS
Daily Journal Names Morgan Chu, Ben Hattenbach and Jason Sheasby Top IP Lawyers
04.2021
Morgan Chu, Ben Hattenbach and Jason Sheasby were selected to the Daily Journal’s 2021 Top IP Lawyers list, which honors the 80 California attorneys who have made the biggest impact on the intellectual property field.
The publication recognized Morgan for securing a $2.2 billion jury award for VLSI Technology in a trial against Intel, a $1.2 billion patent judgment for Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and Juno Therapeutics, and a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court victory for NantKwest. The Daily Journal also noted Ben’s work in obtaining the landmark VLSI verdict, in addition to a confidential settlement for Tessera.
Jason was recognized for victories including a $506.2 million patent trial award for PanOptis against Apple, as well as back-to-back jury verdicts exceeding $300 million for United Services Automobile Association in separate patent trials against Wells Fargo.