100lbStriper
10 hours ago
Stokd $NLST It's not hard to fathom the possibility that Samsung went too far in their desperate pursuit of undoing their 3rd BOC loss.
We witnessed and understand the lengths Samsung has gone, and will go, to avoid losing their license/BOC case.
Any improprieties legally/procedurally can be investigated and exposed through an evidentiary hearing, as Netlist sought.
They could've pushed it and crossed lines in their attempt to find something, craft anything, which I'm sure gets more challenging with each trial...what do they have left but to get more creative, and with little legal options left, one can imagine what they're capable of.
We'll see what happens and if anything other than juror interviews is addressed. But if they dive in to Samsung's involvement and approach with the jurors—as Netlist wants/sought—who knows what comes out.
Pic below shows what Netlist sought for the evidentiary hearing if the judge was going to hold one for their juror bias allegations. Do us right Hsu!
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5341147/default.png
https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/621445510
100lbStriper
10 hours ago
Stokd $NLST For clarity, here's what happened and where we are with respect to the BOC case and interviewing of jurors.
There was a hearing July 11 to address how the judge will elicit testimony from 3 jurors. That hearing was held and minutes (pic 1 below) were released today stating — "The matter was called, and counsel stated their appearances. Court and counsel confer. The Court discusses the procedure for examination of jurors."
Also today the judge scheduled an evidentiary hearing. Remember that in the parties joint status report, Netlist requested as part of their position that (pic 2 below) — "Finally, to the extent that the Court conducts an evidentiary hearing on Samsung’s allegations on juror bias, any such hearing should also address facts relating to Samsung’s waiver of this argument and its contact with jurors."
So there's a lot we don't know right now regarding specifics on what is involved with the interviews and evidentiary hearing...could be looking into aspects in pic 3.
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5337923/default.png
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5337932/default.png
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5337997/default.png
https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/621433984
choo choo trader
17 hours ago
Nah, I don't think Hong is interested in selling his baby Netlist. But, if your gonna dream, dream big! How about a bidding war to buy Netlist between SK, Micron, Samsung, and Google. Or maybe a consolidated buyout of Netlist by these previously mentioned infringers pooling their resources buying out Netlist and getting them all off the hook at once plus having free past and future access to all of Netlist's technologies. I wonder how many billions Netlist is worth to these companies. I wonder how many billions it would take to persuade Chuck to sell his baby. Many I would suppose.
Ooou812
20 hours ago
"Investing.com -- High-bandwidth memory, or HBM, is poised for a breakthrough year in 2026 as AI’s compute-hungry needs continues to reshape the memory landscape, UBS analysts said in a recent note.“Our channel checks continue to indicate that SK Hynix Inc (KS:000660) will likely secure a largely stable market share in the HBM market in 2026 around 50% of total bits,” the analysts said, underscoring its expectation that Hynix will keep its grip on next-generation memory, even as contract negotiations and rival ambitions swirl."
100lbStriper
1 day ago
cool, but i must admit i got the distinct impression you were much much younger, congrats, and happy birthday!!!
in regards to your question. its just one big company crying the blues over the new uspto rules because vidals bs is no longer being applied at the ptab....... so for us, nlst.......we're not going to get railroaded with major delays on our patents that are on trial. meaning if we're in action, in court, or have started a new case. the infringers cant use ptab to delay the process because the estimated date of the ptab process would take longer than the trial. that is my understanding of it all. anyone have anything to add just chime on in.........
happy birthday brother!!!
100lbStriper
1 day ago
Amici Have Their Say in SAP’s Challenge to USPTO Recission of Vidal Discretionary Denial Guidance
“In many instances… discretionary power is the only legal mechanism that can prevent the abusive use of IPRs by large infringers to suppress inventors and small companies and to discourage the enforcement of their patents.” – USIJ amicus brief
Several amici have weighed in this week on a petition challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) recission of former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal’s guidance on discretionary denial—and retroactive application of the new, interim guidance—which SAP America, Inc. argues violated its right to due process.
SAP filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in June seeking to compel the USPTO “to apply its June 21, 2022, ‘binding agency guidance’ to SAP’s petitions, and all still-active petitions filed before February 28, 2025, and to not pressure SAP or any IPR petitioner into forfeiting in parallel district court litigation an invalidity ground it could not have reasonably asserted in their IPR petition.”
SAP brought several inter partes review (IPR) petitions against claims of Cyandia, Inc.’s patents in October 2024 and filed a so-called Sotera Stipulation in February 2025 “agreeing (contingent on institution) not to pursue any ground of unpatentability in district court that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in any instituted IPR…” Under the Vidal memo on discretionary denial, the PTAB would not “deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.”
But on February 28, 2025, USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded that memo and explained that “[t]o the extent any other PTAB or Director Review decisions rely on the Memorandum, the portions of those decisions relying on the Memorandum shall not be binding or persuasive on the PTAB.” Then, on March 24, the Office issued a memo “announcing that the February 28 rescission would apply not only prospectively to petitions filed after that date, but also retroactively to ‘any case in which the Board has not issued an institution decision, or where a request for rehearing or Director Review of an institution decision was filed and remains pending,” according to SAP’s petition.
On April 27, 2025, the PTAB denied institution of SAP’s IPRs, finding in part that “SAP’s Sotera stipulation had ‘limited practical effect’ because it did not cover the prior art system described in part by the printed publications cited in the IPR.” SAP’s request for Director Review of the denial was summarily denied in a one-sentence order. SAP is now arguing that mandamus relief is its only recourse and appropriate. “Due process and separation of powers are clear and indisputable legal rights applicable to SAP, and SAP’s rights were violated,” the petition argues.
Specifically, since SAP filed its IPR in October 2024 and the memo was not rescinded by Stewart until February and retroactive application was not announced until March, SAP argues that the legal landscape was greatly changed “leading to severe consequences for past actions SAP had taken in reliance on the Vidal Memo’s binding agency guidance.” The petition also argues that the Board’s assertion that “to clear the discretionary denial hurdle, SAP needed to also agree, upon institution, to forgo unpatentability challenges based on system art that it could not have raised in IPR” violates the separation of powers because it at odds with Congress’ intent in the statute. “This new policy is an unconstitutional agency end run around the statute,” says the petition.
Amici this week included Patent and Trademark Attorneys, Agents, and Applicants for Restoration and Maintenance of Integrity in Government (PTAAARMIGAN LLC); the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI); and the Alliance of U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ). While PIPLI urged the CAFC to grant mandamus relief, echoing SAP’s arguments that retroactive application of the Stewart guidance “violates the principle of the rule of law,” PTAAARMIGAN and USIJ support denial of the mandamus petition.
USIJ said that the USPTO Director should have broad discretion to deny institution of IPR because “in many instances that discretionary power is the only legal mechanism that can prevent the abusive use of IPRs by large infringers to suppress inventors and small companies and to discourage the enforcement of their patents.” USIJ’s brief further noted that Vidal’s memo was only interim guidance until a formal rule was promulgated, which the Office “never succeeded in doing.” Once a new Secretary of Commerce was appointed in February 2025 with the stated goal of reducing the USPTO’s backlog as quickly as possible, that interim guidance became moot, said the brief. Due process could not have been denied because petitioners do not have a right to institution of IPRs.
PTAAARMIGAN argued in its brief that “SAP’s petition is oddly and ambiguously framed” in that it never actually challenges the IPR at issue but instead “appears to be a challenge to a rule.” The CAFC thus has no mandamus jurisdiction, said the brief. SAP has other options for challenging the denial of institution in district court and therefore the extraordinary relief of mandamus review is not available.
Cyandia filed its response to SAP’s mandamus petition on July 14, arguing that “SAP has not even attempted to show a clear and compelling duty to institute inter partes review—because there isn’t one.” While a petitioner might be able to seek mandamus relief in a case where it alleged the institution decision itself was unconstitutional due to, for example, “an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers,” here, SAP’s challenge is a procedural one, said Cyandia.
The CAFC on July 14 also granted the USPTO’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to SAP’s petition until July 21.
https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/07/16/amici-say-saps-challenge-uspto-recission-vidal-discretionary-denial/id=190428/
100lbStriper
3 days ago
$NLST doc filed today 2:55pm notice filed by micron, link is below.
Date Filed Description
Jul 15, 2025
USCA Notice of Docketing NOA
Jul 15, 2025
NOTICE of Docketing Notice of Appeal from USCA re 197 Notice of Appeal - FEDERAL CIRCUIT filed by Micron Semiconductor Products Inc, Micron Technology Inc, MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC. USCA Case Number 25-1936 (NKL)
Link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861663/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-texas-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
100lbStriper
3 days ago
microby $NLST
a good day starts with a good breakfast, i know Rob, you won't have time for that tomorrow, I really wish you would!!!
such a multi-layered Sheasby surprise piece 😀
you will be surprised every now and then!
For a long time there was no real proof that N in DDR5 has gen ingredients (Hong mentioned it) in 00557 he has now carefully proven it with a previously unknown ingredient 😉 731.
I have no doubts!!!
patents on memory modules, 087 even acts in the production of DRAM, called HBM stone, a breeze within the fabrication, the known previously acted on the module
38 more new CSD memory high power ingredients now in the hands of Hong. Another surprise that will pay off with the upcoming hybrid-X.
Rob, have a good trip!!! Offside a good word!
I greet you among friends,
bake yourself one of these, I have already delighted the family
https://stocktwits.com/microby/message/621071305
News
Market Data
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
gdog
1 day ago
Jetmek_03052
2 days ago
