100lbStriper
1 day ago
just saw this post, hes thinking along the same lines as me...........
TOMKILA........... Patent 912, Samsung case, the trial is approaching and here is my hypothesis.
Samsung case
First of all, let's analyze the data from the Micron case which affects two of the three patents that will be cited at the end of October.
“ involved two Netlist patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912 and 11,093,417. The infringing products were all Micron DDR4 RDIMMs and DDR4 LRDIMMs”
“The amount of damages awarded by the jury covers infringement by Micron from April 2021 to May 2024 for the ‘912 patent and from August 2021 to May 2024 for the ‘417 patent”
• the 417 LRDIMM patent worth 20m $ •The 912 LRDIMM and rdimm patents worth $425m
about $140 million in damages p. 912 per year per micron (150 if we also consider p.417)
math helps us for two reasons, samsung is the first company in the business with a value double of micron and then there is also another lrdimm patent cited that however little, it could be worth between 30 and 50 million $.
912 damages start from April 2021 and damages will be cited up to November 2024 so a timing of 42 months against the 35 months of the micron case, more or less the same thing also with the other 2 patents.
samsung could be liable for $220/250 million in damages 912 per year (12 months) * 3.5x = potential $770 m - $875m damages 912 + $80/90 m damages lrdimm patents.
So the damages could be around a range of $8/900 million. We take away 20% and we find around a range of damages between $700 and $750 million. This data will surprise many shareholders but it is exactly what we could read in 6 weeks.
100lbStriper
3 days ago
$NLST Here are the Responses filed by Netlist to Micron's JMOL Motion regarding Willfulness / Infringement / Damages and Motion for New Trial. This is the 294 case post trial that Netlist won.
They are all sealed, maybe we get the unsealed/redacted versions from Netlist in a week, though Micron's JMOLs are still sealed from Aug 7th.
But to be honest....it is the same arguments rehashed from their initial JMOL filed during trial right before the jury starts deliberating, which was denied, but motioned in order to preserve these issues for appeal, but only if they RENEW their initial JMOL post trial.
We have read enough of their motions and briefs through the cases to get a feel for what it's about. The thing about Micron that makes litigation a bit less convoluted is that there are no issues or aspects with a previous contract and license, eliminating a whole dynamic of disputes that take up time and space as well as muddying everything else between parties, like Samsung.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_586625607.png
100lbStriper
3 days ago
Stokd $NLST Part-1
What if anything Gilstrap was trying to get ahead of is a mystery, perhaps cutting off any possibility of appeal claims by Samsung similar to what we’ve seen and know they're capable of...I'm sure you can imagine.
Since Gilstrap already denied many Samsung stay motions and 4 in this case, and given he's very familiar with their tactics, the opportunity presented itself to allow another judge—fresh set of eyes & mind—to consider and rule on Samsung’s Stay — which was again a denial that also affirmed Gilstrap's previous denials.
Gilstrap is up against Samsung as well in a away. An appeal is on the judge and their possible error in conclusions or law as well as abusing discretion, in relation to a judgment or procedural. Gilstrap has to make sure his judgment can withstand appeal, so he’s going to do things whose purpose we may not understand at the time.
Why all the trial date changes etc…judges following procedures governing their actions. But it's all very intriguing!