retired but keeping my sense of humor
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.
NLST Case 0993 Netlist v. Samsung.
486
April 8, 2024
Main document
Annulment of court summons https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
$NLST Gilstrap now reversed the change and set trial back to the original date — "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."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568852577.png
i've looked at the eclipse before, no glass's, checked it out for 30 seconds or so. i still see fine for my age except for reading glass's. havnt even bothered with the current one lol !!! yeah i better put on some sun block 40 then i can look like our clown!!!
robcobb
42m
$NLST Just a reminder to everyone it was right after jury selection in the Samsung case that we found out the damage numbers .Nlst could argue for 404 mil and Samsung could only argue down to 8 mil! The jury was picked by 12pm.The trial was to start proceedings at 1pm after everyone had a lunch break. (I arrived at 1pm.)It was almost 2pm before Judge Gilstrap ,Jason,and Cordell entered the courtroom. They had been in Judge Gilstraps chambers arguing over the amount of damages that could be asked for at trial!Judge Gilstrap took his seat and said (I am not going for this!) ,holding up two pieces of paper and directing his comment towards Jason.On the papers that Judge Gilstrap held Jason was asking for 1.8 billion to 2.3 billion! Judge Gilstrap was very adamant about what damages Jason could ask for.So maybe April 26 after jury selection in the Micron trial we will find out what damages Nlst is seeking,and what Judge Gilstrap allows.I will be there as usual to report what I hear!
NLST Correction... Micron 294 case!
Stokd
37m
$NLST Heads up in Micron 203 case — "NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Selection originally set for Monday, April 29, 2024 has been RESET for FRIDAY 4/26/2024 at 09:00 AM followed by Trial Day 1 in Ctrm 106 (Marshall) before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. (aeb) (Entered: 04/08/2024)"
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568815003.png
NLST Heads up in Micron 203 case — "NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Selection originally set for Monday, April 29, 2024 has been RESET for FRIDAY 4/26/2024 at 09:00 AM followed by Trial Day 1 in Ctrm 106 (Marshall) before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. (aeb) (Entered: 04/08/2024)"
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568815003.png
WHO APPEALS (AND WINS) PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES?
https://houstonlawreview.org/article/66211-who-appeals-and-wins-patent-infringement-cases
Some revealing quotes
"The PTAB is a primary reason that Big Tech was able to monopolize, and China now leads the U.S. in 37 of 44 technologies critical to our economic growth and national security.'
"Each PTAB tribunal consists of three APJs. You might assume it is imperative that all three would, at the very least, have a degree in the patented technology. This is not the case in 91.8% of PTAB petitions."
"PTAB management most often assigns APJs to cases where the technology in question is not even remotely close to the APJ’s undergrad degree. "
Which explains the questions like what is DRAM and Address Bus...
But they are qualified enough to determine "Obvious"
Hopelessly Inexperienced PTAB Judges Are Destroying U.S. Innovation
https://innovationgadfly.com/hopelessly-inexperienced-ptab-judges-are-destroying-u-s-innovation/
lol !!! i already have 911 on speed dial for the day it happens !!!
Stokd
2:09 PM
$NLST Something else to keep in mind… the team from Irell&Manella handling all of Netlist's cases DO NOT want to lose and WILL NOT go down easy, which provides some confidence and serenity. They and our lead Sheasby are at the top of their game... and a bet on Netlist is essentially also a bet on Sheasby, the firm's reputation, and other members getting involved to bring the win ultimately. Infringers can't stretch Sheasby too thin anymore—which we've seen is the intent.
There is a big team working along side Sheasby, including Phillip Warrick who’s an Irell/DC big gun who is now on a few cases, including new ones like the Micron 628 Declaratory Judgment filed by Netlist. In that case—which recently held a Scheduling/Mgmt Conference setting trial and other dates—another member of Irell was added, taking the discovery load off Sheasby... so it looks like we'll have some action soon in a new case also with Gilstrap.
Part of Thomas Werner's bio is pictured below with the docket entry.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568612739.png
NLST FYI DD & Historical Reference:
“An International Guide to
Patent Case Management for Judges”
https://www.wipo.int/patent-judicial-guide/en/full-guide/united-states
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568607506.png
A lot in here: https://www.wipo.int/patent-judicial-guide/en/full-guide/united-states
The Indirect infringement (below 10.5.2) is likely why various companies are asking for indemnity.
Interesting please read up in this area…
“10.5.2 Infringement
U.S. patent law provides for liability for both direct and indirect infringement.”
Also interesting:
“10.5.3.1 Patent invalidity
Section 282(a) of the Patent Act provides that patents “shall be presumed valid.” Therefore, the patent owner does not need to prove validity in an infringement action. The challenger bears the burden to prove invalidity by “clear and convincing evidence.”118”
https://www.wipo.int/patent-judicial-guide/en/full-guide/united-states
robcobb
7:25 AM
$NLST At many hearings that I have witnessed over the last year and a half to two years,Judge Gilstrap has been very adamant about not wanting to hear about any rulings from other courts and doesn’t want them to be mentioned in his court that (he will make his own rulings!)There was only one hearing that I heard Judge Gilstrap say that (he did not have his head in the sand when it came to the PTAB). He added the word (but )at the end of that statement !I think Judge Gilstrap will look at the PTAB rulings and rule in a way where his logic and knowledge of the case and cases leads him! I am pretty sure we will find out pretty soon what he is thinking.Looking forward to Stokd posting the document or documents that give us some direction!
thread...... https://stocktwits.com/robcobb/message/568535150
TOMKiLA
7:24 AM
$NLST NETLIST is hiring vice president marketing for CXL hybridimm project!!!
The launch is soon?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Netlist_/comments/1bwfjms/so_cxl_hybridimm_is_ready_to_launch_soon/?share_id=zt6DXDsq1M6CGF2605zcc&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1
thread https://stocktwits.com/TOMKiLA/message/568535022
Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294)
District Court, E.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?order_by=desc
they are the sellers lol !!!!
Stokd
4m
$NLST Take a look at my litigation chart below, notice how much else is in play aside the Micron 203 case. The only things impacted by the PTAB at this point are the Micron 203 and Samsung 463 cases... and with the 463 trial unanimous win with patents deemed valid and willfully infringed, we don't need the 203 trial win for the CAFC to reconcile the decisions of District Court and PTAB, because the Samsung 463 case will get to the CAFC first, and results will impact the Micron 203 case.
Active and in play aside the Micron 203 case—with no impact from PTAB:
- Micron 294 trial
- Samsung 293 trial
- Samsung BOC trial
- Samsung 463 case post trial motions
- Delaware Samsung/Google case—valid patent
- Micron WD-TX case—valid patents
- German cases
- 2 Declaratory Judgment cases
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568123765.png
microby
31m
only if, possibly, one would have, then would be, there would be a possibility,
not concrete at all! do you realise that?
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568387833.JPG
microby
30m
of course, an invention must be buildable, not just in theory! It must make sense in function.
the last ptab decision with the abstruse possible combinations of conceivable inventions that could have been made.
Would this result in a Ferrari? What does Micron Dr Stone say?
"...that looks very strange. I don't think you can build that. ..."
ptab thinks it would have worked, cafc will not see it that way
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568387502.JPG
threas....... https://stocktwits.com/microby/message/568387502
gm, lol!!! i remember that!!! ''it’s a big club and we are not in it!''
obviously !!! and a 2b with routing instructions !!!
1. Netlist had patents that were granted to them…. yes
2. They licensed out their IP to Samsung, etc samscum never paid, they stole
3. Now the PTAB is stating their patents are invalid? yes
Trials After PTAB Invalidity Rulings Present Tricky Issues https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/news/trials-after-ptab-invalidity-rulings-present-tricky-issues/
Law360
January 26, 2024
By Ryan Davis
A recent case illustrates that Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions finding patents invalid do not necessarily preclude a district court from holding an infringement trial on the same patents, though attorneys say such a scenario could raise some challenging issues.
The Federal Circuit this month denied a mandamus petition in which semiconductor company Micron asked to stay an Eastern District of Texas trial in a suit against it by Netlist, until after appeals of PTAB decisions that found some of the computer memory patents at issue invalid.
A magistrate judge recommended still holding the trial, and the district judge has not yet ruled. Micron said “the patent system is tarnished” by holding a trial on patents that have been deemed invalid. But the Federal Circuit denied Micron’s petition, in part because it was filed close to the trial date, which has since been delayed.
Many judges stay infringement cases while the board reviews the patents at issue, but others in popular patent venues like those in Texas often do not, raising the possibility of a trial following an invalidity ruling. Since PTAB invalidity decisions aren’t final and can be appealed, district courts can elect to still hold a trial.
“There is nothing legally prohibiting a patent owner from proceeding to trial on a claim that has been found unpatentable by the PTAB, as long as that decision is still subject to appeal,” said Will Milliken of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC.
He noted that courts will often put the case on hold after an invalidity decision, or the parties will concede that moving forward would be inefficient. But if that doesn’t happen and the trial takes place, “it’s definitely an interesting set of circumstances,” Milliken said.
Efficiency Concerns
Since a number of judges have made clear that they aren’t inclined to stay cases to await PTAB decisions, “I think it’s an issue that is becoming more and more common,” said Manny Caixeiro of Venable LLP.
He said it’s true that once the PTAB has ruled, “the final death blow may not have occurred yet, but that really should be a very different question [from] whether it’s efficient, and whether it makes sense, to move forward with a trial.”
Holding a trial after the board has found patents invalid can be expensive and burdensome for the court and the parties, but “judges have a ton of discretion in this regard,” Caixeiro said.
He noted that holding a trial could make more sense when the parties are competitors, since continued infringement could cause the patent owner to lose market share, which is one of the reasons the magistrate judge recommended holding the trial in the Micron case. That’s less of an issue when the patent owner is a nonpracticing entity that doesn’t make products, Caixeiro said.
The “biggest concern” is that if the PTAB’s decision is upheld on appeal, which happens in 73% of cases, “that could result in unwinding any verdict on behalf of the plaintiff that was reached at trial,” said Scott Barnett of Honigman LLP. “The potential exists for the entire trial to have been for naught, and at great expense to both parties.”
Unique Issues
If a trial goes ahead after the PTAB finds the patents invalid, the court and the parties may have to confront some thorny questions, beginning with what the jury can be told about the board’s decision.
The defendant would most likely want jurors to know that the patent at issue has already been deemed invalid by a patent office tribunal. However, judges have wide discretion on such evidentiary issues, and many are reluctant to mix details of separate PTAB reviews into what may already be a complex case.
Some judges have taken the position that “the jury has enough to keep up with, without you guys starting to talk about different proceedings,” which could be confusing, Milliken said. In many situations, the patent claims at issue in court and at the PTAB are slightly different, but if they are the same, there could be a case that the board’s decision is relevant, he said.
“I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides,” he said, so “it’s not a foregone conclusion which way that one would come out.”
An invalidity decision could also factor into a defense to allegations of willful infringement, said Edward Lanquist of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC.
If the defendant claims it did not willfully infringe because it thought the patents are invalid, and the PTAB has backed up that belief, “you would think that that would certainly support my argument that there’s no willfulness here,” he said, but whether jurors could hear that would be up to the judge.
Inter partes reviews at the PTAB come with an estoppel provision, which holds that parties cannot make invalidity arguments in court that they raised or could have raised in the review. So if the board finds the patents invalid, the defendant faces some hurdles in securing an invalidity verdict at trial.
The defendant “is likely to have to mount its invalidity defense with a hand tied behind its back,” Barnett said. The invalidity arguments presented to the board, which were likely viewed as the strongest ones, would be off-limits, along with others that could have been raised, which leaves arguments that can’t be used in inter partes reviews, like patent ineligibility.
The situation arose in 2021 in a Delaware case where the PTAB found that one of the caller ID patents that TrustID asserted against Next Caller was invalid, and U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika denied Next Caller’s motion to exclude that patent from the trial.
She noted that holding a trial on claims the board found invalid, while barring the defendants from making invalidity arguments due to estoppel, “seems counterintuitive,” but “it is a permissible result that follows from the statute and relevant case law.” When the trial was held, the jury found Next Caller did not infringe any of the patents, an outcome that was affirmed on appeal.
Appeal Complications
When a trial is held after the PTAB has found the patents invalid, it’s possible the jury will conclude the patents are infringed and not invalid, which would add complexity when the different outcomes are appealed, attorneys said.
“It’s very procedurally complicated how this might play out,” Sterne Kessler’s Milliken said. He noted that under a 2013 Federal Circuit ruling known as Fresenius, an invalidity decision by the board that is upheld on appeal can wipe out a district court infringement verdict that is not yet final, making timing an important factor in the appeals.
If the board and a court reach different outcomes on invalidity and appeals are pending simultaneously, the Federal Circuit could coordinate the cases and resolve all the issues at once. But if the appeals end up on somewhat different timelines, “you can find a situation where the parties are basically in a race to try to get the judgment that they like final first,” Milliken said.
The issues can get even more convoluted if the patent has been successfully challenged at the board by a different company than the one facing trial in district court, and if there are multiple infringement trials involving different companies, Venable’s Caixeiro said.
In that scenario, there could be more than one infringement verdict, each presenting several issues, being appealed alongside a PTAB invalidity decision on the same claims, which “makes the appeal particularly complicated,” he said.
If district courts decide to hold trials after the PTAB has found the patents invalid, “you can see it coming: There is going to be a day soon where these inconsistencies are really difficult to resolve,” Caixeiro said. “The courts are going to have to address it after the fact, and that’s less than ideal.”
–Editing by Kelly Duncan and Lakshna Mehta.
Stokd
9:19 PM
$NLST I thought her answer in the below image was pretty clear... they did barrage her as usual, but this time Chandler got it as well.
The issue of expression and language barrier—with respect to judges—can't be enough of a factor if Sheasby/Chuck have confidence in her. These are oral arguments after everything has already been argued back and forth through briefs with demonstratives/exhibits.
Not to diminish the importance of orals and good performance, but based on the line of questioning and substance, it seems the judges wanted to explore any holes they can find searching for something to invalidate with. Question is, can Anita/Netlist present enough where PTAB/judges can't find a way to justify a decision of unpatentability.
Anyways, I'll leave that alone and just say it's anyones guess, we're all prepared for the worst while already looking past the PTAB.
I can relate to DuffelChad's moments of frustration, but it was while watching Anita, not reading the transcript.😂
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568194088.png
GoodTidings
8:13 PM
$NLST By the way this is very interesting!!!
"Reposting my response to another poster who wrote to his Senator…. Senator Dick Durbin
Good for you…sent below to Senator Padilla…..fyi Vidal was sworn in April 2022.
Dear Senator Padilla
Attached is court document showing that even after Kathi Vidal was appointed Director of the USPTO in April 2022, she was still with William and Strawn, counsel for Micron in a patent infringement trial Unification Technologies vs Micron in which trial was set to begin June 2022. Sounds like conflict of interest to my ears.
https://www.cadwalader.com/uploads/media/WDTX-6-20-cv-00500-97.pdf
Please write your Senator in the Judiciary Committee and send the attached documents as proof that even after Vidal was appointed she was still listed in the attached documents as counsel for Micron."
robcobb
6:07 PM
$NLST We know that Judge Gilstrap is aware of the PTAB ruling on the 060 and 160 by now.I am anxious to see what his reaction will be since those patents were ruled valid and willfully infringed by a jury in his court against Samsung , and upheld by Judge Gilstrap after a bench trial last year.There were expert witnesses knowledgeable of how the patents work that testified to the validity of the patents ,which is higher standard of evidence than what the PTAB uses. I think if I was Judge Gilstrap knowing the PTAB judges already knew of his prior rulings , I would be very insulted! Let’s see what he does in the coming days.Should be very interesting times in the upcoming days!
thread.... https://stocktwits.com/robcobb/message/568178606
Geo_D
5:33 PM
$NLST posted yesterday from USPTO.
A mockery-and-contradiction. Government institution not an example of “In God We Trust”. And previously where CAFC “schooling” PTAB.
Chuck and Jason like the Patrick Henry “give me liberty, or give me death”
SHE NEEDS TO GO TO PRISON..........
https://www.inventorsdigest.com/articles/your-uspto-directors-blog-leap-forward-with-ptabs-help/
CRR4270
4:41 PM
$NLST folks……here is the simple reality :
1) no sitting superior court judge is obliged nor obligated to adhere to any ruling of the executive branch of government. Period. Full stop.
2)if 1) above WAS EVER FALSE? A sitting president could invalidate any ruling of any court at any time. Simply put? THEY CANNOT.
3) Judge Gilstrap WILL consider the conclusions of the PTAB, and give it the proper weight it deserves. It is basically nothing more than ill conceived biased opinion and has nearly no weight as such in the judges court, and he has ample authority and discretion to set it aside.
4) Gilstrap is not going to allow PTABs verdict to undermine his own. On that basis he will uphold his own ruling.
5) Samsung will appeal to the CFAC. Unless the judge abused his discretion? An overturn of Gilstrap on appeal is highly unlikely.
End of story
whatever happens happens is all i can say. but i will say this, whatever decision ptab comes to is not the end and the reaction to the pps is temporary. we can cry all we want in the mean time as i dont care anymore, but i will stay in this till the end.
Stokd
12:09 PM
$NLST Current state of things.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568123765.png
lol!!, thx
Stokd
6m
$NLST The transcript of the 912/claim 16 IPR Oral Argument was just released, and in anticipation of the FWD (Final Written Decision) to come any day, figure it's worth a post if anyone is interested. This is the one where the judges actually interrupted and challenged Samsung attorney Chandler quite a bit—which in prior Orals was strictly reserved for Netlist.
Who knows, maybe the PTAB can't avoid looking biased and incompetent if they were to invalidate claim 16, and after the 060 & 160 negative results, perhaps they let 912/claim 16 stand. I'm not expecting it, but am I nuts to think we have a chance... optimism mixed with realism. Regardless of PTAB decision, I definitely believe the CFAC will reconcile and get this one right... at the least.
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=mINOqZM5IJRhAMuR0j2m_kIiffJy5zkj123Z0VfjRWnZVdQOSdy8wkY
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_568120538.png
our main man is still stamping a clown on every post.
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas 698
Mar 29, 2024
Main Document
Notice (Other) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861664/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
Netlist, Inc. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC (2:22-cv-00294)
District Court, E.D. Texas 78
Mar 29, 2024
Main Document
Notice (Other) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?order_by=desc
yeah...... what he said..........
Bowlsketball
54m
$NLST I'm a long-time reader and first time poster. I have been invested in Netlist for few years. I know the last few months have been a slog with regards to the share price, but I am feeling real good about what is in store for the next couple months:
- Micron trial starting at the end of April for the same patents we already won against Samsung
- BOC trial against Samsung starting in May. Scarsi is aware of Samsung's shenanigans and they have put themselves in a hole.
- Gilstrap will release the ongoing royalty payment for the previous Samsung/Netlist trial after the BOC concludes. This will be huge and could provide much-needed relief to Netlist's balance sheet
Along with these three items, I expect revenue for the 1st quarter to be in the $40 - $50 million range based on Gail's comments during the previous earnings call.
I think all of these things will push Netlist's stock price to a minimum of $4 with potential to go to $10 - $15.
Go Netlist!
Stokd
2:24 PM
$NLST Just look at the image... what a travesty!!!
"In 91.8% of petitions, PTAB management did not assign three APJs with the correct educational background and experience to panels. That is an incredible number and shows that the PTAB has no expertise at all, let alone the agency expertise of the USPTO."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_567805892.png