Replies to post #23181 on NetList Inc (NLST)

[100lbStriper]

gm, for one the 912, and everything you see in this chart that they are appealing....... https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2024/5/6/mloatstokd_05062024.png

just so you know kathy vidal was micraps lead lawyer before she became head of ptab. cafc will overturn her puppet circus.

[100lbStriper]

NLST Nice 🔥 Starting process to reverse PTAB's claim16 invalidation by Director or then CAFC.
Netlist's—REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW—of PTAB decision on claim 16 of 912 ptnt.

Part of Intro—rest in link below:
"The Board’s final written decision presents important issues of law and policy related to the recognition of priority dates for patents challenged in inter partes review. Director Review is necessary to clarify that the Board must consider evidence of how skilled artisans would understand priority-document disclosures, as well as to clarify evidentiary burdens in priority disputes. The Board wrongly ignored the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art “POSITA” at the time of invention when it denied claim 16 the benefit of “the ’244 provisional” priority date because that application does not expressly recite two specific words “bank address” appearing in claim 16. This error fatally undermines the Board’s obviousness determination..."

https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=uOqk7iXM6HfcZ1TMUxoReZfGNjx32v98Wbkr1-0F2ptBOfL8Dm91pKs

[Jetmek_03052]

As 100lbstriper has outlined, the PTAB ruling of the of the 912 (claim 16) patent is an important one to have the CAFC overrule. It was already affirmed in the Google case by both the PTAB (twice) and the CAFC (once). But somehow, Micron got the PTAB to review it AGAIN, and the incredibly called it not patentable.

Also, the 060 and the 160 patents (dealing with HBM Chips I believe) are important ones for Netlist going forward. The CAFC should overrule the PTAB on those.