NetList Inc (NLST)

[100lbStriper]

NLST Plaintiff (Netlist) Oppostion to Samsung's Renewed Motion to Stay the #463 Case. Filed Yesterday. Only Available, so far, on Pacer. I'll post the pertinent pages in the comments.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570809121.jpg

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570809193.jpg

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570809642.jpg

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570809788.jpg

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570809915.jpg

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570810056.jpg

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570810552.jpg

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_570810725.jpg

NLST Indefinitely delaying the enforcement of the jury's findings in favor of the PTAB proceedings
at this point would be unjust and inefficient. Once the remaining two motions in this case are resolved,
Samsung can appeal the jury's verdict to the Federal Circuit just as Netlist plans to appeal the PTAB's
findings of invalidity. At that point, the Federal Circuit will be able to decide the outstanding issues in
each case with the benefit of the full record from both actions should it so choose. This is plainly the
most just and efficient course of action. Samsung's proposed stay, on the other hand, would deprive
the Federal Circuit of the opportunity to decide when and how to review these judgments and further,
would conceal the jury's findings of infringement, validity, and willfulness from the record, along with
any contradictory representations Samsung made in this Court and before the PTAB. This is not the
purpose of a stay and this Court should not delay its final decision

not exactly my interpretation as these are Jason Sheasby’s words in arguement for why a delay makes no sense.