100lbStriper
4 hours ago
Stokd $NLST I knew it was coming!!! 🔥
Suck it Samsung — their JMOL & New Trial motions in the 463 case are 🔥DENIED🔥!!!
My Recap extension is not working, perhaps someone else can make the full doc/link publicly available.
"Before the Court are two motions. The first, filed by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) is Defendants’ Combined Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 561.) In the Motion, Samsung moves under Rules 50(b) and 59, respectively, for judgment as a matter of law on multiple grounds or, in the alternative, for a new trial. (Id. at 1–4.) Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) opposes the Motion. (Dkt. No. 573.) For the following reasons, the Court finds that this Motion should be DENIED."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580409261.png
100lbStriper
1 day ago
(old article)I founded Netlist in Irvine, California, over 20 years ago to develop the most sophisticated memory module technology in the world. We succeeded, shipping over a billion dollars of product and partnering with top companies, such as IBM, HP and Dell, to power their high performance computers. Netlist continues to invest heavily in R&D in the U.S. We hold more than 130 patents, many of which have been designated as standards-essential. Our memory technology has benefited consumers, businesses and the U.S. military as it is now an integral part of advanced computers deployed in a variety of industries.
When we began the company, we were under the impression that securing a U.S. patent was the high-water mark of innovation and that this would protect our inventions against infringement. A patent, we believed, would allow small innovators like Netlist to compete with large incumbents that wield enormous market power. It’s a maxim in business that Goliaths leverage scale to grow while Davids must innovate to survive. Historically, the patent system has helped even the playing field between the large incumbents and disruptive newcomers. However, after an unprecedented, decade-long fight against one of the largest companies in the world, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is no longer the case. The U.S. patent system is now actively working against disruptors like us and decisively in favor of Big Tech companies.
Repeated Patent Attacks
Starting in 2005, Netlist began working with Google. Our early breakthrough design in advanced memory modules helped power Google’s search engine at a time when it was gaining dominance. But, after several years of partnership, Google stopped purchasing our products and decided instead to build and consume infringing knock-offs. Faced with blatant theft of our intellectual property, Netlist approached Google to initiate licensing discussions. Google instead preemptively sued us in 2009 and we responded in kind.
Following this, Google – in concert with their partners – challenged the validity of our ‘912 patent in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This challenge initiated a stay in the patent suit that lasted at first for a decade, and, incredibly is back in effect. This initial challenge, a pre-America Invents Act (AIA) inter partes reexamination, eventually resulted in the USPTO upholding our patent as valid. However, following the passage of the AIA in 2012, the ‘912 patent reexam result was subjected to a PTAB review. Years later, the Board validated the ‘912 patent’s reexam result. Following that, even more reexaminations were pressed by more entities, with the examiner affirming claims of the ‘912 patent again, and then the PTAB finding the claims valid – again – in 2018. Finally, in 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed these multiple decisions and conclusively (or so we thought) found the ‘912 patent was valid – over ten years after our dispute with Google first began. All the while, our patented technology has been used by Google and other implementers free of charge.
We thought that after multiple reexam validations, multiple PTAB approvals, and an affirmation by the Federal Circuit, we had finally been given a quiet title to our invention. We were wrong.
The Fight Continues
Despite this patent being found valid FIVE previous times, including by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Samsung, working in collaboration with Google, filed yet another IPR against the ‘912 patent earlier this year. Congress never intended IPRs to be used to endlessly harass patent-holders. Yet, the PTAB, now under its fourth USPTO Director since the case commenced, has just instituted this challenge. Google, with a market capitalization of over $1 trillion dollars, has now leveraged the system to avoid facing a trial for infringing our seminal patented technology for 13 years.
Unfortunately, this is part of a common and predictable playbook for Big Tech companies. Rather than take a license, they exploit the AIA’s IPR process to hold-out and use the technology for free with impunity. The judicial system is not fast to begin with. The IPR process adds years on top of this to tie the hands of patent holders and deny them their day in court. Google and Samsung alone brought 1,185 PTAB challenges between 2012 and 2021. They are not challenging “bad” or “low quality” patents per the original intent of the IPR process. The reality is that Big Tech companies rarely challenge bad patents; they tie up the best patents that pose the greatest competitive threat. The decision to hold out is based on business necessity, not legal merit.
An Institutional Fix is the Only Way Forward
Netlist will continue to innovate. But I could not in good faith encourage young entrepreneurs with new ideas to assume the U.S. patent system will not be misused by Big Tech. The U.S. patent system was established under the Constitution to promote innovation and encourage practitioners to create disruptive technologies from which the benefits can flow to society at-large. For hundreds of years, the system was the underpinning of our innovation ecosystem and helped make the American economy the most powerful in the world. Over the decade of its existence, the AIA has upended this fundamental precept. A patent today is no longer a quiet title to protect your innovation. Nor is it an incentive to innovate, as it does not protect innovation. Rather the best patents are an invitation to endless, duplicative challenges by the biggest companies, allowing them to hold out for years while they use the patented technology for free.
Congress needs to end serial and abusive attacks on legitimate patents and patent holders. It can be done; the current system is not what the legislators envisioned when the AIA was passed. The market response to the systemic weakening of our patent system is evidenced by inventors taking their patent applications to China, where the numbers of patent issued has grown dramatically over the past few years while the U.S. patent issuances have remained stagnant. At a time when our country is investing hundreds of billions in the semiconductor industry in order to preserve our global competitive advantage, the legislature should roll back the pernicious fallout of the AIA and preserve the original intent of the patent system, which helped to create our competitive advantage in the first place.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 61369901
Author: iqoncept
CHUN K. (CHUCK) HONG
Chun K. (Chuck) Hong is the Chief Executive Officer of Netlist, Inc., a publicly-traded (NLST) semiconductor company which he co-founded in 2000, and took public in 2006. Netlist is a [...see more]
https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/11/15/disruptive-startups-cannot-survive-in-a-post-aia-patent-landscape/id=152973/#
100lbStriper
1 day ago
NETLIST SCHEDULES SECOND QUARTER 2024 FINANCIAL RESULTS AND CONFERENCE CALL
IRVINE, CA / ACCESSWIRE / July 22, 2024 / Netlist, Inc. (OTCQB:NLST) announced today that it will report its financial results for the second quarter ended June 29, 2024, before 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 30, 2024.
https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/2120/us-press-release.html?airportNewsID=bdfa2853-de67-48ff-b433-eae6ec6e5ef0
Netlist will host a conference call at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 30, 2024. Netlist encourages participants to pre-register for the conference call. Callers who pre-register will be given a unique PIN to gain immediate access to the call and bypass the live operator. To pre-register, click here.
For those who would like to join the call but have not pre-registered, they can do so by dialing +1 (412) 317-5443 and requesting the "Netlist Conference Call."
A live webcast and archived replay of the call can be accessed in the Investor's section of Netlist's website at www.netlist.com.
About Netlist
Netlist is a leading innovator in memory and storage solutions, pushing the boundaries of technology to deliver unparalleled performance and reliability. With a rich portfolio of patented technologies, Netlist has consistently driven innovation in the field of cutting-edge enterprise memory and storage, empowering businesses and industries to thrive in the digital age. To learn more about Netlist, please visit www.netlist.com.
For more information, please contact:
Mike Smargiassi
The Plunkett Group
NLST@theplunkettgroup.com
(212) 739-6729
SOURCE: Netlist, Inc.
View the original press release on accesswire.com
Jetmek_03052
4 days ago
Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 39 Filed 07/19/24
Gilstrap Denies Microns Motion to Dismiss
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.226945/gov.uscourts.txed.226945.39.0.pdf
ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the “Motion to Dismiss”) filed by Defendants Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC (collectively,
“Micron”). (Dkt. No. 7.)
In the Motion to Dismiss, Micron seeks the dismissal of Plaintiff Netlist, Inc.’s (“Netlist”) Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). (Dkt. No. 7 at 1.)
Since the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 14.)
It is well established that a later-filed amended complaint moots a motion asking the Court
to dismiss an earlier-filed complaint. See Griffin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 697 F. App’x 793, 797 (5th
Cir. 2017) (“Once filed, that amended complaint rendered all earlier motions … moot.”); see also
Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00139-JRG, Dkt. No. 40 (E.D.
Tex. Oct. 4, 2021) (“Once Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, the Motion became moot.”);
Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Eaton Corp. PLC, No. 2:19-CV-00290-JRG, 2019 WL
11250161, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2019) (“Accordingly, the filing of an amended complaint moots
a motion to dismiss the original complaint.”).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) should be and hereby
is DENIED-AS-MOOT.
.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of July,
100lbStriper
6 days ago
$NLST PT2 Full read is something!😂 'Not the first time'—“If you think this website is unusual, please note that I'm not the first person to do this. The late Judge Reinhardt expressed his public disgust with things he saw at O'Melveny back in the 1980s.”
'They like to silence people'—“According to the NY Times, an O'Melveny attorney used violent imagery to threaten a sexual abuse victim into silence, as her assailant watched.”
'The quality of O'Melveny's legal work'—“O'Melveny's legal services might not always be of the highest quality. For example, per ABCNews Sac af, O'Melveny's lacking advice embarrassed the governor's office and cost California wildfire victims billions of dollars”
'Money'—“The firm has a money-obsessed culture, which they called "eat what you kill.””
'They corrupt government'—“Ingrained in O'Melveny's culture was the idea that a government job isn’t accepted to serve the voters, the public, or the country – it’s taken to serve yourself, and the people who pay you.”
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_579744470.png
https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/579744470
100lbStriper
1 week ago
Stokd $NLST And one last thing—character limit doesn't let me get all my thoughts out in a single post, maybe I have too many thoughts 😂—I hope that Scarsi does hold an evidentiary hearing, follows procedure and allows Samsung their due process, and then shuts it down....so this cannot be an issue or reason to remand when Samsung appeals to the 9th Cir.
And as I posted last night and here again, pic below shows how the 9th Cir deals with this, even in instances much more egregious they find no bias....no where close to or a comparison to our situation.
So when/if there is an evidentiary hearing ordered, keep these things in mind and don't lose your shit....it is ultimately a good thing for us. Stay calm and collected, let the process play out, stay up on DD/research to strengthen conviction and maintain perspective. And as many have pointed out, this is an indication of the significance of our BOC win and them being unlicensed.
We are good....we got this!
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_579657636.png
100lbStriper
1 week ago
Stokd $NLST This is what lawyers do, especially high paying ones. They're creative, and find crafty ways of painting pictures and telling stories, the basis of which come from their "investigations" into what helps their cause and narrative.
Don't be fooled by what they present and claim as significant enough to alter a jury trial. And delay in CA BOC case is not a factor on TX cases, Gilstrap doesn't care what happens nor how BOC ultimately concludes since ongoing royalty is not an element anymore in TX, so he'll move TX cases forward regardless.
Why would we even be surprised that Samsung is trying to accuse a juror of bias, should be expected. Just another Samsung circus show that attempts to circumvent justice, most of which have been unsuccessful. Let's await word from Netlist and/or the judge and see how it plays out.
I'm not concerned. Even in worst case a new trial ends the same way. But as I/DD showed, needs to have been bias/prejudice by juror, lying is not enough for new trial.
100lbStriper
1 week ago
Stokd $NLST It's not nearly as much of an issue as Samsung makes it out to be, and boils down to 1 juror. They have to make it appear more significant and exaggerate implications, as they have nothing left.
Keep in mind CEO of Netlist is Korean, and juror 16 is not on trial here, nor does involvement in litigation automatically disqualify or imply bias. Juror 16 wasn't the one suing, but was sued repeatedly by Korean plaintiff.
Samsung went digging for anything they can base an argument on that trial was unfair. But as they write — "Netlist stated its position that, even if the factual assertions underlying the juror issues were correct, it would contend that implied bias had not been shown."
The way its crafted reeks of nonsense, very contrived, hence IMO the need to lay it out as such. Netlist didn't even want to entertain it, and regardless believes there's no bias.
This is what desperation looks like...judge has seen it before, and IMO won't play along.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.599.0.pdf
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_579606183.png
100lbStriper
1 week ago
Stokd $NLST What I expected to come next, sooner than later, is Gilstrap to rule on Samsung's JMOL/New Trial in the 463 case/trial win—thereby disposing/finalizing all pending matters in the case, and allowing the clock for Samsung's CAFC appeal to start.
He is expediting the case towards the CAFC, so it may catch up to the patents-in-suit CAFC appeals, which are still in early stages, and where Netlist has recently motioned in 3 appeals for extensions to file first briefs—which were granted recently—precisely so the 463 case can catch up.
In the big scheme/big picture of things, this is excellent news, and shows Gilstrap understands Netlist's litigation campaign and is doing all he can to make sure justice is sought.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_579521454.png
Jetmek_03052
1 week ago
Gilstrap grants Netlist request to withdraw Ongoing Royalty Motion in Case #00463
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.211544/gov.uscourts.txed.211544.605.0.pdf
Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 605 Filed 07/15/24
Before the Court is Plaintiff Netlist, Inc.’s (“Netlist”) Opposed Motion to Withdraw Dkt. 563 (the “Motion to Withdraw”). (Dkt. No. 602.) In the Motion, Netlist moves to withdraw its Motion for an Ongoing Royalty (the “Royalty Motion”) (Dkt. No. 563) without waiving its right to seek an ongoing royalty following the resolution of all Federal Circuit appeals regarding the IPRs impacting the asserted patents in this case.
The Court finds that Netlist should be permitted to withdraw its Royalty Motion without prejudice as to refiling the same. As Samsung has said, “Samsung agrees that Netlist’s Motion for an Ongoing Royalty . . . should be withdrawn.” (Id. at 2.) Further, Samsung does not articulate any opposition to Netlist refiling the motion at a later date beyond those it has already raised in opposition to the original Royalty Motion. The Court granting Netlist’s motion without prejudice should not be construed as the Court deciding the issues raised by Samsung concerning the procedural propriety of the original Royalty Motion or any refiling of the same. If Netlist refiles its motion after the Federal Circuit appeals are resolved, Samsung may likewise re-urge its procedural arguments as it did in opposition to Netlist’s original Royalty Motion. There is no prejudice to Samsung.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Netlist’s Motion to Withdraw (Dkt.
No. 602) should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, Netlist’s Motion for an Ongoing Royalty (Dkt. No. 563) is hereby WITHDRAWN. Netlist is permitted to refile its Motion for Ongoing Royalty (Dkt. No. 563) no later than ten (10) days following the resolution of all Federal Circuit appeals concerning the asserted patents, if those decisions leave this issue alive and open.
.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of July, 2024.
News
Market Data
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
mfascuba
7 hours ago
Jimmy Joe
7 days ago
MastaBeta
1 week ago
