It is very important that an investor understand the role that government plays in the patent, creator/infringer world and have a clear understanding of what happened starting in the Obama administration. What this understanding can do is provide a level of confidence in Netlist's case. That is Netlist's patents prevailed and case returned to district court where proper discovery/jury(!) can be performed/utilized. Here is a sort of outline starting with the Obama administration passing the AIA and ending with some consequences:

AIA- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a tribunal within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that reviews rejections made by examiners in proceedings called ex parte appeals and decides patentability questions for issued patents raised by third parties in proceedings called AIA trials.

The America Invents Act (AIA) created the PTAB or the Board. It was known previously as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or BPAI. https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/ptab-inventors

PTAB- The AIA trial proceedings were intended to be an alternative to district court litigation with several key differences from district court proceedings. For instance, AIA trials are conducted before a panel of three technically-trained administrative patent judges whereas district court litigation may be in front of a jury. Also, while discovery is available in both forums, discovery before the PTAB is more limited in scope, thereby costing the parties less to litigate. Finally, PTAB trials conclude normally within 12 months from institution; district court litigation, in contrast, may take several years to conclude. https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/newsletter/inventors-eye/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-who-are-they-and-what

PTAB (consequences)- In patent litigation, it is now essentially the norm for accused infringers to file a parallel IPR petition challenging patent validity and seek a stay of the district court litigation. In fact, IPR petitions have risen so dramatically over the last few years that the number of PTAB appeals before the federal circuit has recently eclipsed the number of district court patent appeals.

Given the pervasive use of AIA Petitions and the rate at which patents are being invalidated by the PTAB, it is not surprising that considerable disagreement exists on whether these new PTAB proceedings have improved or harmed the patent system overall. Many technology companies view IPRs and CBM reviews as a very effective way to challenge suspect patents and combat frivolous infringement litigation. However, numerous patent owners in the life science industries see the high invalidity rate of PTAB proceedings as an alarming trend that has decimated the ability to enforce U.S. patents and weakened America’s innovation system.

https://morningconsult.com/opinions/four-reasons-trumps-pick-next-uspto-director-matters/

JMO- The AIA approached solving the problem from the wrong end. Instead of making the USPTO more top heavy they should have raised the bar at the examiner level.
Now the PTAB has just become, in part, another stall tactic for big business.

Yes! Seems like there is an argument for that in an infringement case. Not sure how the law would go about assessing your points. I bet Netlist intends to find out.

Perfect meme for Samsung:

https://stocktwits.com/Tomkila/message/405365264

I am not a patent person. The patent need only reach the level of “substantially” the same. Dictionary equates substantially with considerably. I don’t think the word substantially creates a confusion that rises to the level of people finding it “difficult to understand”.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

I heard her say it, oldest case. She cannot help but feel a need for justice.

He is unflappable in his confidence of what he knows to be true!

That’s a Wesley post see here:

Wesley Chan is an early product innovator at Google Inc., best known for founding Google Analytics and Google Voice, and for building Google’s early advertising system. Wikipedia



https://www.linkedin.com/in/weschan

There is a point where the court will start declining to take a motion or appeal in a long case. The N V G is the oldest case on Armstrong’s docket.

YMB—- With Patent 11,016,918 Netlist can dominate mobile memory for the next 15 years read how here
Netlist invented a whole new memory architecture for the new generation mobile devices what could last 15 years; The '918 covers the most important aspects of this memory, LPDDR5 & also Flash. It has the exact 4 voltages of the DRAM array of LPDDR5 standard in patented claims: 1.8V 1.2V 2.5V & 3.3V. Also it covers Dynamic Voltage Scaling & Dynamic Frequency Scaling explained & illustrated with beautiful drawings, DVS & DFS & the voltages are the most important aspects of the new mobile memory architecture. Both Flash memory & LPDDR5 use Dynamic Frequency Scaling & Dynamic Voltage Scaling in this new standard with LPDDR5. According to market research this memory structure is going to have 50% of the mobile market smartphones & tablets in 2023 from 10% now. I have seen all pictures of the patent & pic's 12, 16 ; of DVS & pic. 19, of DFS are so detailed they can't be copied. This can be found in the pictures of the patent 12, 16 & 19. This setup results in longer battery power, also less read & write operations, less tear on the memory chips, also a lot of power for demanding 5G applications. Power supply isn' t going to be less in the future.

********** they are litigating this patent since 2012, it falls under the doctrine of equivalents.

Yeah G’s rebuttal was only 2 paragraphs. It was a joke.

True that.

So what pps for a win 11/10?

$14

Smart!

Do you mean G's response to Netlist?

https://www.reddit.com/r/NLST/comments/qipdiy/googles_response_to_netlists_statement_of_recent/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

glad to working capital still up there.

The top 7 new posts for HAJ are the most recent filings
all in last 12 hrs or so.

https://www.reddit.com/user/HedgeAppleJoe/posts/

Imo if the judge is clean she will find for Netlist. G’s motions arguments are ill conceived and lazy. Where as Netlists are based in law. G’s just burning time and I hope the judge recognizes it.

Of the 2 motions G is speaking of one is for summary judgement and another is to strike N's assertion of claim 16 both G motions. The first lets them off the hook for pre re-examination timeframe and the 2nd for post re-examination timeframe.

It is still bs....

You're welcome :)

G’s motion does not say that about “if Netlist’s motions are favored”. G’s motion is confusing but they are talking about what will happen if their own motions win.

Yeah the guy on reddit said: Good overview from Linus Tech Tips explaining the physical & logical differences between DDR4 to DDR5 including the new onboard power management controller on DDR5 sticks (which Netlist has a patent on)

Also if understanding the presenter indicated something better than DDr5 was on the way, no details though.

This vid on DDr5 lost me but I do get the presenters enthusiasm

Hear hear!

Again YMB:
Chuck Hong on August CC: "Two additional patents with strategic value were recently granted to Netlist. First, U.S. patent 918 recently issued and relates to power management features found on DDR5 memory modules. As the speed and power on memory modules increased significantly at DDR5, all standard memory modules for the first time, including those used in personal computers as well as servers will require power management features embedded in the module itself. This design concept to localized power management was invented and first deployed by Netlist over a decade ago in some of our early custom designs for high-performance memory modules."

Rambus: "A major change for DDR5 is power architecture. With DDR5 DIMMs, power management moves from the motherboard to the DIMM itself. DDR5 DIMMs will have a 12-V power management IC (PMIC) on DIMM allowing for better granularity of system power loading. The PMIC distributes the 1.1 V VDD supply, helping with signal integrity and noise with better on-DIMM control of the power supply."

IDT: "Power management integrated circuits (PMICs) developed for DDR5-based dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) addresses a broad range of computing platforms and enables next-generation platforms to take full advantage of DDR5 memory to realize greater performance, density and reliability while reducing overall system power. Distributed power management functions across each memory module – as opposed to centralizing them on the motherboard – brings inherent benefits to system thermal profiles, as well as reliability and scalability.

The rise of storage class memory (SCM) with unique voltage, current and power sequencing requirements is also a key trend requiring distributed power architectures.

New ultra-low current power states such as "quiescent" and "idle" modes can provide significant battery life extension compared to earlier motherboard power solutions. PMICs also include some of the most valuable reliability and serviceability (RAS) features from the server world such as fault protection, error injection, error logging and advanced telemetry into a wide range of platforms including notebook, desktop and embedded computing. "

So, our patents now go from "server only" to "all forms of computing." I like the sound of that.

These e-mails show that Samsung intentionally reduced orders to Netlist and also charged more than a similar company. This was boc. They also showed terrible undue judgement of Netlist as a partner whose patents they were
using to full advantage. Personally I believe this was fear of ultimately having to pay for willful infringement.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AOicp04E9CF426o&id=658845AE0CC93963%2186693&cid=658845AE0CC93963

Also coming 11/10 the N V G case will be in court where the Judge will rule on some motions of both sides. Claim 16 is front and center. I hope the below comes into play but maybe they don't need it.


I remember this but not how it was posted, YMB:

Excellent, good sleuthing

I remember this but not how it was posted, YMB:

Google still talks about absolute intervening right on Claim 16. The only thing that is disputed in Claim 16 by Google is that the delay lock loop in DDR4 Server memory modules is a lot different than a phase lock loop. I saw this on Reddit posted by GSOP912 or HAJ 2months ago there that Samsung agreed with Netlist that the phase lock loop is substantially the same & that the difference is negligible, so this falls under the doctrine of equivalents. This wipes out their complete Claim 16 defense. This evidence was sealed. Our legal team must do something to use this as evidence V Google.

Nice work Mac! Thank-you

Instead they stole it....yeah it's almost like they a monopoly or someum'.

Kairos is an Ancient Greek word meaning the right, critical, or opportune moment.

YES! and I'm not going to worry about sharp changes Q to Q in some accounting indicators due to some incredibly good news in Q2 about a big win for Netlist and shrholders.

This is what I expect:

In the Q2 CC Gale said, "under current conditions, hot market, their mix of product, SK deal (products),etc..."we are bullish and expect to see nice increases in product revenue over the 2nd half of the year."

The variety of estimates on the most practical level reminds an investor of the depth of catalysts (so far wins) involved. Nobody's estimates go out very far yet point to solid even game changing results.

NLST keeps racking up the wins.

NewMoney been over a year since we heard from you.

Here's another estimate with G payout of 3-4 BB:

If we have $3-4 billion in the bank, relist to Nasdaq and trade at our current PE, what would this be worth? If we get a $4 billion pay out, we would go up by about $16 + 7.50 so $23.50. Add in the relisting premium of at least 20% and we’re closer to $30. Now, add in licensing, royalties and project future earnings…

Yeah that sounds good too. I think we've a good chance of seeing a new price target if these wins keep stacking up.

Scarsi served up a denial to Samsung today...good day.