Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) Quote

I believe that Stokd neglected to mention that we are still waiting on Gilstrap to give a ruling on Samsung’s request for a new trial in the 00463 case.

Once Gilstrap denies that motion (I can’t imagine he won’t), then there’s not much doubt that 29 days or so later, we’ll see Samsungs appeal of that case.

That will start the clock on THAT 18 -24 month wait!

Latest Litigation Chart (07/06) Courtesy of Stokd

july 6th updated litigation chart..........
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578689410.png

Stokd $NLST Though not much has changed, it's been a while since last post/version of the litigation chart & timeline to CAFC finality chart.

Here’s what we’ve been immediately waiting on that’s significant—among other known developments.
- Trial date of Samsung 293/912 ptnt case, whether Samsung’s trial continuance was denied.
- Final Judgment in Micron 294 case.
- Rulings on post trial motions in Samsung 463 case.
- Claim 16/912 Director Review Request—if denied, the CAFC appeal is next.

Litigation chart below and CAFC timeline chart in comments.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578688575.png

Timeline to CAFC finality chart.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578688658.png

$NLST Competition for people and skills in the HBM space.

Samsung, SK compete to secure semiconductor experts

Samsung Electronics and SK hynix started their respective recruitment procedures this week to hire massive numbers of semiconductor experts, amid a fierce competition for leadership in the rapidly growing artificial intelligence (AI) chip market, according to industry officials, Thursday.

This is unusual for the two largest chipmakers in Korea to post job openings in July.

Their recent move has been interpreted as part of efforts to lead the market for high-bandwidth memory (HBM), which has enjoyed rising global demand following the rapid growth of AI technologies https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/samsung-sk-compete-to-secure-semiconductor-experts/ar-BB1po453

$NLST Potential Impact on USPTO Regulations of Supreme Court Unraveling the Chevron Deference https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/potential-impact-on-uspto-regulations-7287717/

NLST With the recent SCOTUS judgement (striking down the Chevron doctrine and curtailing power of federal agencies such as EPA, FDA, USPTP/PTAB,…) the „race to first judgement“ may become even more important.

How could the CAFC give more weight to the PTAB when a jury and real judge have already given their verdict (?) We will need to see the effects of that recent SCOTUS judgement, but if it has an effect on Netlist’s litigations then rather favourable.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

JERRY ALSTON NLST.............

https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/4050/leadership.html

STRAPS ON THE JOB LOL !!!
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578668124.jpg

Let's go Judge Gilstrap, finish these issues up. Onward to the Appellant Court where 91% of appeals from your court are denied. https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578660578.jpeg

SilviaJ $NLST So Samsung calls out NLST to the judge saying that Netlist is trying to game the system, get their judgement in first. And what was Judge Gilstrap's reply?

Sorry, but no.....it would wrongly signal that the judicial branch is subservient to the executive branch; denied!

Judge Gilstrap knows there is a "Race to Final Judgement"
And Samsung called out Netlist in the last court document. All that is remaining to wrap things up is for the "Court's ruling on the few post-trial issues".

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578660059.jpeg

Stokd $NLST In our 215 & 417 IPRs—whose decisions (FWD) are due by Aug 2—there was an Order today.

At first glance of the title—PANEL CHANGE ORDER—I though...what kind of BS is this, "due to unavailability"...which makes no sense and is irrelevant being briefs are complete and so was oral argument.

So of course given all the bias/corrupt nonsense we've witnessed and experienced, the first thought in my mind is PTAB or Director is stacking the panel and making changes to usher the decision they prefer/want. It's not the first time in our IPRs there was a panel change, although earlier in the proceeding.

But after reading the doc and getting to who is being replaced, I felt better. Leaving is Galligan...."what is DRAM" guy who was the most nefarious towards Netlist/Sheasby during previous oral arguments. Still smells a bit, we'll see.

"Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Kevin C. Trock replaces Administrative Patent Judge Daniel J. Galligan on the panel."
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550898/download-documents?artifactId=2Rwuwb_oUb1AvwwJ4Y2q2aXxa5g9md1yF68ocqmB5v176UJqEhumZ1Y

148 close enough, enjoy the weekend!!!

12 cent spread bs!!!

C'MON 150 !!!!

my 02.......i dont think he was hired. i see his posts from time to time. hes either the same guy or just reposting the updates as opinions.

LinkedIn postings on ST

Is it possible that the poster on ST who continues to link to the LinkedIn stories on Nlst has been hired by NLST to promote the company? If so he needs to post outside of the NLST thread on ST because there he is just preaching to the choir.

your absolutely correct, i was jumping the gun. i had to re read that filing again. it will be hong as it has to be. i thought the accounting firm Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP were getting on board. see what happens when you get excited!!!

lol !!! yes, if it wasnt for the swamp we'd have a lot less information on this board. God bless them all!!!

bobbeach
9:13 AM
$NLST I have been patient as heck but this current line of info has put even me in a negative mode. For years I have believed and backed nlst with great belief in our Legal system, but I am slowly realizing this may go on until I die. I'm an Officer from Special Forces with bullet holes for this country but I am losing my belief in my Country's fairness to the small investors!!! Most of us aren't as sophisticated as Robcob, Stoked or Silvia, et al, and this thread is a slow realization that this may never end. For the first time I am losing my faith in the fairness of my own country!!! We need to destroy these foreign bastards like Samshit, Googlie, and the lawyers who condone and suck up to them. Stil slightly bullish!!!
Bullish

thx, yeah just speaking off the top of my head there. its just that it made me think of it being a cue to go when he started bringing it up. time span is another story, the pps is any ones guess. but we'll deal with it when it happens.

I think you are jumping too far ahead Striper. Every corporation has to have directors, and therefore Hong is our one and only director. The BOD required for NAZ has to include outside directors. Otherwise, you are usually right on target and I appreciate your postings bring the stuff from the swamp at ST over here where it is much easier to read. Keep it up please.

i got the meaning of both you guys conversation and would like to add. a few years ago it hit me that when hong starts mentioning bod hes got nazdaq on the mind. because he only needs bod for the nasdaq uplisting, nothing else. thats why he got rid of them and went otc to save his company without any of there red tape.

so now we got a vote coming on a member for the bod. it might mean nothing, but he is mentioning bod which is needed to up list, its only getting started no where enough members but it is a start. thats why i liked this guys post. we're gonna crush the 912 in texas and have google on the hook in february for a lot more than all our combined jury awards to date.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174704789

maybe i'm premature on the naz thing, but those jury verdicts on the 912 will go are way for a monetary amount before or if they go to cafc.

NLST Received a response from Senator Tillis’s office a couple days ago. Went something like:

Hi Mr. xxxx my name is Caleb calling from senator Tom Tillis’s office. Wanted to give you a call, I know you had sent senator Tillis, a message regarding Netlist, and some of the challenges they’re having with regards to their intellectual property. Certainly understand your concern there, and just more generally about things that have gone on with the PTAB. I wanted to mention that senator Tillis has joined the piece of legislation, along with Senator Chris Coons together they are the chairman and ranking member of the senate judiciary committee sub committee on intellectual property. They have a couple of bills they worked on together. One of them is the prevail act. Essentially, this would attempt to make some changes to the PTAB, restore it to what it was intended Less gamesmanship, room for gamesmanship going on there. It certainly sounds like this would tie into the issues cont…
You’re talking about. So I wanted to mention that more broadly, we understand the concern and I will certainly be sure to raise it with our team and senator Tillis as well. But just wanted to touch base and let you know we got your email. We certainly understand the concern, and would welcome any further input on topics of concern you might have weather is specifically related to this or any others. You’re welcome to email just as you did or give our office a call at 202 224 6346 OK have a good rest of your day. Thank you

https://stocktwits.com/bluesuit55/message/578595221

I realize that but they can negotiate a buyout/merger sometimes you need deeper pockets to get to the end goal! Sometimes you can’t let your pride stand in your way! Remember all public traded companies are supposed to have their shareholders in mind! Can NetList make it alone maybe and maybe not. Will definitely have to issue more shares but time will tell.

The process isn't over yet. The repercussions are accumulating. As far as buyout, NLST had a poison pill to prevent that. Hong doesn't want to settle for pennies on the dollar. The goal is to be recognized by the market for the innovations they have developed and to be justly and fairly compensated for their use.

What good is a patent if these big tech companies can just steal it and use it with no repercussions!! If NetList patents are so great then why hasn’t anyone just come in and bought out NetList! I think there is a big dog watching in the shadows with deep pockets who will soon be coming out of the shadows!! Anyone have an idea who this big dog is??

US law firms smell opportunity as Supreme Court guts agency powers https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-law-firms-smell-opportunity-supreme-court-guts-agency-powers-2024-07-03/

tokd $NLST Rather than focus on and reference Netlist's claim 16/912 Demonstrative from IPR Orals—which I did with screenshots yesterday—it's more prudent to look at Netlist's Response in the IPR itself, which is more substantive and thorough.

Keep in mind Netlist's Dir Revw Rqst is also full of detail and specifics.
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=x-DVSxYRv2Jos0r-jQS1FsUccPX3leFQX1bOUgwO8gdqMGaidfyuZ7I

And what Netlist claimed in Dir Rev Rq email to Dir Vidal—"The Board committed several errors that led it to deny the challenged patent claim the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications."—bottom pic below.

https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=PVz-7ZaqgWMwedaAwOuY00K_2jrt3JokV3pg4haJSwWqsAbggWAn2iE

PG 54 of Netlist's Response in claim 16/912 IPR—"ON THE FULL TRIAL RECORD, PETITIONER FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE OVER GROUND 3"—where you can see there are 2 aspects—"A. Ellsberry is Not a “printed publication” Under §311(b)—"B. Ellsberry is Not Prior Art to the ’912 Patent".

https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=5r3Eg3AQgo6CUXvJPZ2G45M2rpZtamV64nh1ug7_Boj9-nFW-g8xWLU

From 912 patent itself in top pic below—"Related U.S. ApplicationData"
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/f3/5b/756a8ca3d9ab11/US7619912.pdf

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578549530.png

Stokd
2:39 PM

$NLST @FrankFromYahoo I'll try to clarify:
1)You're conflating different aspects of Samsung's Ground 3 that Netlist is arguing against.
2)Please read the article I posted yesterday on 'printed publication', which also provides case law and explains 'secret prior art'.
3)Which is a separate issue/aspect than "prior art" relating to when claim 16 was disclosed.
4)3 dates—priority / filing / critical—are fluid depending on circumstance, and complex.
5)Lynk Labs v Samsung appeal will address whether prior-filed, later-published patent applications, are "printed publications" and are a permitted basis for IPRs.
6)I'd warn using ChatGPT as a sole basis for understanding and opinion. Thereby limiting yourself because ChatGPT doesn't know or understand the multidimensional aspects of Netlist's situation/IPR/patent/appeal, nor the cases and issues currently being raised and addressed through appeals that can have implications on other cases and patent litigation going forward.
7)Let it unfold/play out https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578547926.png

TOMKiLA $NLST Huge news again.

SK Hynix expects to hit an accumulated revenue of mid-US$10 billion in high-bandwidth memory (HBM) sales by the end of 2024.

Should sk fight against netlist like samsung and micron or should sk Hynix find a deal with netlist for all the patents and with a 1% of ip licenses of revenues ? 😌

It’s not easy to talk about these things but the sk Hynix HBM revenues are increasing exponentially and ddr5 will follow the HBM trend with low margin.

We are talking about the hugest opportunity for netlist to change the rule

April 2026, the end of sk Hynix deal!

In 2026 I think sk will show between $20 and 25 b HBM revenues and all dram revenues should be over $100 b

https://stocktwits.com/TOMKiLA/message/578542189

love this guys idea!!! ..............''$NLST happy 4th fellow Americans. May the winds of justice prevail. NLST long with Hong.

Game plan:
Samsung hang’s themselves on the 912
Another 800 million in the bag.

Hong Uplists

Google falls while institutional investors money comes rolling in.

SP $100+''

ahh thx you, trying to read everything lol off to a party enjoy the fourth

won is the name of their currency, as dollar is the name of ours. if the article doesnt do the conversion. just pull up a currency translator on the internet and you can see how many won equals how many dollars.

It compares with an operating profit of 670 billion won in second quarter of last year.

what do they mean by won?

scum is going to owe us some serious jing.......... AI frenzy expected to have boosted Samsung Q2 profit 13-fold
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-frenzy-expected-boosted-samsung-223433638.html

NLST In the interest of others curiosity and following this Lynk Labs vs Samsung case due to its implications on our claim 16/912 situation and incoming CAFC appeal, here is some info on the case, docket, and current status.

- Case # 23-2346

- Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

- Amicus Briefs were filed in support of Samsung by those with shared interests disguised as "patent owner friendly" organizations....and some in support of Lynk Labs, including from VLSI.

- Appeal is currently at the stage of awaiting scheduling of Oral Argument — "Notice from Intervenor Katherine K. Vidal regarding conflicts with oral argument" — yes "INTERVENOR" as Silvia pointed out, Vidal intervened/threw herself in the appeal.

- In the same pic below you can see the name of the Lynk Labs attorney and author—Stephen Schreiner—who wrote the article on the subject I posted earlier today.

- With Oral Argument being the last step of appeal, decision comes next, there's no set timeline.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578522233.png

Here is more of the docket from Pacer....
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578522482.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578522482

$NLST Where I'm goin with "timing" in my previous post, during the claim 16/912 IPR, Netlist knew and included the fact that the "printed publication" issue is at the CAFC, and obviously prefers it comes at least prior our CAFC appeal oral argument. Any delays since, regardless how redundant—Dir Revw Rq—helped us with that.

VLSI has an appeal currently, where they asked CAFC to wait for Lynk Labs-Samsung ruling. Big implications for VLSI if CAFC rules for Lynk Labs, and does so prior to VLSI's CAFC conclusion.

"The Federal Circuit won't freeze an appeal of an administrative ruling invalidating a patent that a Texas jury said Intel infringed to the tune of $1.5 billion. That damages award to patent owner VLSI was vacated by the CAFC in a separate appeal in Dec 2023, but the court instructed a federal judge in Waco, Texas, to hold a fresh trial on damages. But if the validity decision from the PTAB is upheld on appeal before the damages trial reaches a final judgment, that would wipe..."
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578520028.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578520028

Stokd $NLST To sum it up, here's what we know:
- We're in good hands!

- Netlist legal team is on it — as shown in the demonstrative from oral arguments in IPR of claim 16/912 ptnt (posted in comments of previous post).

- N legal team is not uncertain nor confused about the strength and legitimacy of their position pertaining to what constitutes "printed publication" / "prior art" / "priority date", and when claim 16 was first "disclosed in '244 provisional application (July 2004) and '436 patent (March 2005)".

- N legal team is aware of and follows relevant cases/issues/challenges to current law as they make their way though the process. And the CAFC decision in Lynk Labs v Samsung appeal will come well before oral arguments in our claim 16/912 IPR CAFC appeal—which hasn't been filed yet, as we await the decision on Director Review Request first.

- N legal team considers timing and implications, employing strategies which translate to if/when Netlist does/does not act on maters or other aspects.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578518439.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578518439

Netlist's Demonstrative for Oral Argument in IPR of claim 16 of 912 ptnt.
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549198/download-documents?artifactId=iV6bZqJApakGi2fiTj84DgvMiHwMmkHmcr0cp-EGZ4acs15KC4matgw

Stokd $NLST Just adding to conversation—from Netlist's Demonstrative.

All of Petitioners' Grounds Are Deficient
-Ellsberry is not printed publication (similar
issue now before the Federal Circuit)
-Ellsberry is not Prior Art: Ellsberry was filed
Jun 1, 2005. Claim 16 disclosed in 244
provisional application (July 2004) and 436
patent (Mar 2005)
-No teaching or suggestion of "the command
signal [being] transmitted to only one DDR
memory device at a time" when there are
multiple devices per rank

Ellsberry Is Not a Patent or Printed Publication under 311(b)
-Priority date for the claim: no later than July 1, 2005
-Ellsberry is not a patent
-Ellsberry was published on 12/7/2006, after 7/1/2005

Issue Is Currently Being Briefed at Federal Circuit (Lynk Labs v Samsung)
-Whether the Board erred in determining that the Martin reference, a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application that could only be prior art under pre AIA35§102(e)(1), can be applied in an IP as a "printed publication"under 35
U.S.C.§311(b)
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578515790.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/578515790

SilviaJ $NLST Well, as we have been discussing, there IS objective evidence that Ellsberry is NOT prior art.

"Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of non-obviousness other than to respond to Petitioner’s assertion of evidence of “simultaneous invention.”

Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ellsberry teaches or suggests each limitation of claim 16 of the ’912 patent and is unpatentable as obvious over Ellsberry.

But, but, but....

Samsung contends that the priority dates:

’912 patent is July 1, 2005.
Ellsberry is June 1, 2005

Samsung contends that Ellsberry constitutes prior art to claim 16 of the ’912 patent.

Hmmmmm, the only problem? Ellsberry was "secret prior art"
It wasn't published until Dec 7, 2006.

Yet, NLST filed for the '912 patent in 2005.

The inventions were simultaneous.
https://stocktwits.com/SilviaJ/message/578514164

have a great day tomorrow.

$NLST for the micron case in the western district of Texas. Joint status report due Sept 17th to keep the court informed of the IPRs

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_578511034.jpg

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63002044/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

NLST shareholders can take pride in the fact that scamsung employees dont like big scum either.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/samsung-electronics-union-south-korea-declares-general-strike-4448896

maybe thats why they cant reverse engineer product for nvda correctly ??? lol !!! hahhaaha

lol !!! i know your busy. i'm just jealous. i can only follow one at a time!!!

Hey I may miss a few but I'm trading full time and looking at thousands of stocks a wk. I already said I was sorry lol

ahhh sorry anyhow you can't have enough NLST enjoy tomorrow..

Stokd $NLST Had this good/thorough piece on the subject saved since Jan, written by the attorney representing LynkLab in their CAFC appeal vs Samsung & Vidal.

"But what about an application that was filed before the filing date of the challenged patent, but was not published until after the filing date? That reference is not a prior art “printed publication” because it was not publicly available at the time the application for the patent was filed. This kind of “secret prior art” should not be available as the basis for an IPR."

"The patent statute confirms that IPRs should not be instituted based on patent applications that published after the priority date of the challenged patent but the PTAB has permitted IPRs to be based on prior-filed, later-published patent applications."

"Case Law Confirms That Prior-Filed, Later-Published Applications Are Not Prior Art ‘Printed Publications’"

"The PTAB’s Position on the Admissibility of Published Applications in IPRs Is Incorrect"

https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/01/15/patent-applications-published-priority-date-challenged-patent-not-printed-publications-iprs/id=171874/

lol !!! this is because we know your not reading all my posts!!!
whole thread........... https://stocktwits.com/SilviaJ/message/578499606

SilviaJ
45m

$NLST Director Vidal seems to have taken a creative angle in the Samsung vs Lynk Labs case....which could affect NLST.

She literally inserted herself into that CAFC appeal.

Here is what she says: This Court should hold that § 102(e)(1) published patent applications may be relied upon in inter partes review proceedings because they fall within the scope of “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).

Notice how she says "fall within the scope........" in 35 U.S.C. 311(b). If you go to the actual statute, there is no 102(e)(1) in the current law.

The 102 (e)(1) is actually part of the pre America Invents Act statute.

But when Congress created inter partes reviews as part of the America Invents Act, it imposed a critical limit: IPRs may be based “ONLY” on “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. §311(b).

Fortunately, her determination on what the court "should do" will hold no weight due to Chevron Deference.

993...just a reminder.............

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.588.0.pdf

Stokd
Jun 20, 2024 8:20 PM

$NLST That was quick...parties filed their — STIPULATION REGARDING POST-TRIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE — in the BOC case.

"Following the jury’s return of a verdict at the conclusion of the recent trial, the Court asked the parties to “confer on a schedule for post-trial motions.” Trial Tr. at 886:14-17. The parties hereby agree to the following schedule:"

Link to full doc below--- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.588.0.pdf