NetList Inc (NLST)

[Jimmy Joe]

From YMB GoogleStoleOurPatent912 14 hours ago
Focus on Document 241-3. It is a fantastic Jason Sheasby original. Must Read!! There is such an incredible amount of detail given to Judge Seeborg from Jason Sheasby in this document. This motion to transfer is a gold mine for Netlist Investors.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NLST/comments/sou4rd/doc_241_google_case_plaintiff_netlist_incs_reply/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Reddit link
Posted byu/HedgeAppleJoe
14 hours ago
Silver

Doc 241 Google Case PLAINTIFF NETLIST INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NETLIST’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (DKT. 224) Jason Sheasby gives us tremendous detail in Doc 241-3. Reading this response makes me think that Treble Damages could very well happen.
(I also added document 242 and 243 series to the link on document 241 because they are all repetitive)



Sheasby is direct and to the point! Netlist is paying close attention to share price.

"To put the importance of this case in context to Netlist as a company, when the pending motions

were taken off calendar indefinitely on January 11 because of, Netlist lost several hundred million dollars in market capitalization."

Who is this customer of Googles in the Central District mentioned below and redacted?

Netlist’s commercial relationship with Google is long. This lawsuit started because Google decided to cease purchasing Netlist’s products and instead decided to make infringing knock-off products using third- party manufacturers, in particular,(Redacted) which is located in the Central District. To this day, every time Google purchases knock-off products from (Redacted) , Netlist loses a potential sale.

Another lie that Google told.

Google’s representations to the Court in its Opposition do not reflect reality. Google claims it brought “dispositive” motions (e.g., Dkt. 233 at 5–6) while doing nothing of the sort. Instead, Google concedes it is not moving for equitable intervening rights. Id. at 8 n.4. Netlist asked Google if it would agree to a magistrate judge for all purposes; Google never bothered to reschedule

This should get us some Treble Damages

First, Google is no stranger to Netlist and the Central District. Netlist’s headquarters is in the Central District. This suit stems from the breakdown of Google’s and Netlist’s unique relationship.1 The parties engaged for a number of years in business for purchasing and supplying a unique, Netlist-designed memory module that both reduced cost and improved performance. Dkt. 224 at 13. Instead of partnering with Netlist to rightfully gain the benefits of its intellectual property, Google and its contract manufacturers, such as chose to create a knock-off approximation. is located in the Central District. See supra at 4–5.



From Doc 242 Main included in link below

Exhibit 6, a February 8, 2021 printout of a webpage of one of Google’s suppliers, where the supplier’s identity was derived from material designated “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

(another violation of Judge Spero's order)





https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmM5yQyuRYhlhalzdty2DkPEQRn8Og?e=sQcdGN