Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) Quote

Looks like the PACER court filings search engine is down. I can't access it to download any docs! When you click on the link on court listener, to purchase the file on PACER, the link to get to PACER doesn't open.

Hopefully it's just website maintenance over the weekend.

that 912 is coming soon https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2378682/default.png and what do you think cafc is going to consider after this https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/2120/us-press-release.html?airportNewsID=b9be6faf-dc5d-4920-9032-bf88d55582ef

''The ruling came after last week's oral hearing before a three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit and pending an appeal granted by the Supreme Court of the U.S., the decision is final and binding on future cases.''

some one with clout should publish an article of how fast nlst will excel once they receive the money owed to them.

Zacks article out on NLST (from yesterday):

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netlist-q4-earnings-miss-estimates-123700543.html

Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (8:20-cv-00993)
District Court, C.D. California (i missed this one yesterday)
774

Mar 28, 2025

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Lodging https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

i still think we'll be more than ok going forward.

Much to read. Looks like even if you took away the legal fees, they still wouldn't have been profitable.
Balance sheet a bit concerning (page 56). - Accounts Payable - $42.3mil. Cash available - $22.2mil

And if you want to really get sobered up you can read the Risk Factors (page 10-12) 2 full pages worth. I know they have to put these in there as a 'just in case' but here's the last 4 (out of 36 items)

? Future issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase our common stock, including pursuant to
our equity incentive plans, could result in additional dilution to the percentage ownership of our
stockholders and could cause the price of our common stock to decline;
? Sales of our common stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, could cause the market
price of our stock to drop significantly, regardless of the state of our business;
? As the sole director, Chun K. Hong has significant control over all corporate decisions that may not be
in the best interest of our other stockholders; and
? We do not currently intend to pay dividends on our common stock, and any return to investors is
expected to result, if at all, only from potential increases in the price of our common stock.


Sorry to be a downer. Just posting from their 10Q.
At least now i know why we sit at $1 and Suji's target is only for $2. But I do believe if they keep on winning, and get what's owed them, and get licensing in place, we'll be much closer to my low target of $10. It's just concerning how long it will take and what we still have to go through to get there

New SEC Filing from Netlist Inc.: 10-K https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/3200/us-sec-filings.html

NLST P2
“In sum, the Court does not find that Netlist acted unfairly by filing this declaratory action in this district, particularly given that Micron…”

“Micron goes so far as to allege that “this knowing assertion of invalid patents is quintessential bad faith conduct. Micron is seeking relief before the Idaho state courts based largely, if not solely, upon appealable, non-final decisions. This is unwise.”

“Federal Circuit may reverse the PTAB’s rulings on the validity of the 918 and 054 Patents, which would result in the evidence that Micron relies on in Idaho having the opposite effect and virtually confirming that Netlist brought these claims in good faith—not bad faith.”

“Adjudicating these claims of bad faith while relying on non-final evidence would be nothing short of folly.”

“...how any court (state or federal) could go forward on these issues until the PTAB decisions (as well as the jury trial decisions finding validity) obtain final non-appealable status is hard to understand.”
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2865085/default.png
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2865089/default.png
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2865095/default.png
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2865098/default.png

Stokd $NLST What a Memorandum Opinion/Order by Gilsrap in TX Bad Faith case 628—Netlist vs Micron. Although it's Micron who motioned to stay, and Giltsrap granted, he did so As Modified in Netlist’s interest, supporting Netlist’s position, while rebuking Micron’s approach and even advising judges in related venues that it's unwise to allow Micron to proceed.

Stay is only on 628 case—NOT patent infringement—pending CAFC decision on EDTX patents/cases...saying if any succeed it invalidates Micron’s Idaho bad faith claims. It's contrary to Micron stay request pending outcome of their Idaho case, whose continuance is on appeal by Netlist.

Doc includes litigation history leading to this, followed by weighing factors involving the matter. All factors resulted against a stay (A/B/C), part D is summary encapsulating them all, followed by E (Court Inherent Power) where it really gets interesting and revealing — Gilstrap's thoughts on the situation and clear support of Netlist.

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2864894/default.png
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2864898/default.png

i understand what it all says. my point is its bs to delay justice in the court it belongs in, gilstraps that is!!!

Far from meaningless!

The whole reason for Netlist fighting this "bad faith" charge in Idaho is so that the same "bad faith" charges won't be raised in the ED courts of Texas!

From the first page of the suit:

"To avoid multiple, costly lawsuits and Micron’s blatant venue shopping, Netlist
files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment that the infringement suits brought in the Eastern
District of Texas were not brought in bad faith. Absent declaratory relief here, nothing prevents
Micron from filing seriatim Idaho state court bad faith claims on each patent in dispute in this
district.

This will not only substantially harm Netlist, but, if Micron can collaterally attack (in
Idaho state court) Netlist’s infringement claims brought in this district, there will a significant risk
of inconsistent verdicts on infringement, validity, the availability of attorneys’ fees, and other
patent law questions that are the proper domain of federal law. Thus, a substantial controversy
exists between Netlist and Micron as to whether Netlist’s assertion of the E.D. Texas Patents was
in bad faith under Idaho Code § 48-1703".

in this situation scum could wait till the last minute of the last hour to reply just so they can delay till next week. these o'lmalvaney bastards will take any opportunity you give them.

lol!!! thats the meaningless bad faith case........strap should tell them to drop it, or wipe their ass with it. its useless.....

your welcome......

we'll be seeing docs to those effects sooner or later, my guess sooner.

i'm here to stay as well, it'll end up to our liking once over.

Yes, I realize that. Thanks!

The order from the judge was made on Wednesday. We all know how anxious NLST (Sheasby) is to move this case forward as quickly as possible. I should think that the moment Sheasby saw that order from Hsu, he would have been drafting that paperwork and sending it to Samsung ASAP! Once Samsung gets it, they get to delay 24 hours and send a reply. Then once Sheasby gets Samsung's reply, Sheasby will send any objections that Samsung has to Hsu, and he will rule on any changes to be made (if any).

If the paperwork was sent yesterday to Samsung, their answer would have been today, and then the judge will hopefully enter everything into the record on Monday!

Gilstrap stayed the #0628 case -

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.226945/gov.uscourts.txed.226945.70.0_1.pdf

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Stay (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Micron
Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC(collectively, “Micron” or “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 46). In the Motion, Micron asks the Court to exercise its discretion to stay this declaratory judgment action pending resolution of its Idaho state-court actions. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED AS MODIFIED.




"Staying this case until the PTAB decisions reach finality not only reduces the risk of
conflicting adjudications between the various courts—including between the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the Idaho State Court, and the United States District Court for the District of Idaho — but doing so also avoids the wasteful and premature expenditure of limited judicial resources. While this Court would not go so far as to offer unsolicited guidance to a sister court, how any court (state or federal) could go forward on these issues until the PTAB decisions (as well as the jury trial decisions finding validity) obtain final non-appealable status is hard to understand.

Although Netlist has a legitimate interest in pursuing its own declaratory judgment claims, the Court has determined that these interests, in this case, are outweighed by the considerations of avoiding the premature expenditure of judicial resources and the risk of inconsistent judgments."

From Grok;

In simple terms, this is a court order that outlines a quick process for finalizing a legal decision (called a "judgment") in a case between two companies, Netlist (the plaintiff) and Samsung (the defendant). Here's what it means step-by-step:
1. The court is telling Netlist to write up a draft of the final judgment and send it to Samsung.
2. Samsung has 24 hours after receiving it to look it over and say if they disagree with anything in it.
3. After that, Netlist has to submit the draft judgment to the court and, when they do, they need to mention any objections Samsung raised.

Basically, the court wants to speed things up and make sure both sides get a say before the judgment is officially entered.

thank you

Come on Sheasby, DO IT!

To facilitate prompt entry of judgment, the Court ORDERS (1) Plaintiff Netlist to serve a proposed judgment on Defendant Samsung, (2) Defendant Samsung to respond within 24 hours of service with any objections, and (3) Plaintiff Netlist to then lodge the proposed judgment and to note, when lodging, any objections made by Defendant Samsung.

Hopefully, this was done yesterday. And it is all going on behind the scenes.

If not, it will hopefully be sent to Samsung TODAY, and we will see Samsungs answer quickly.

We've won an important case this week. We're owed over a billion dollars with interest from previous cases. We have new items in the pipeline and a good outlook. But the market doesn't seem to reflect any of that. We are not profitable yet. (I haven't dug into the #s, but would we be profitable without all the legal fees we paid?). I do think we're past the point of anyone (even infringers) thinking Netlist will go bankrupt (and they'd get off scot-free). But market still does not value us properly. Even Netlist's super friendly analyst has a price target of $2. $2 !?! Are you kidding me? That's still way below my break even. Does the market think Netlist will need to dilute and sell more shares before getting to the finish line and seeing any prize money? Does the market think Netlist will need to RS to get into a respectable price range? There's still a dark cloud hanging over Netlist, and I don't know what it is.

But I'll be here holding to $0 or past $10 (again 😝). Hopefully before the next decade.

Netlist CC transcription q4 2024
So I would like to start today's call with the breach of contract case against Samsung. Which was held in Federal Court for the Central District of California. The trial ended on Monday with what is now the second unanimous jury verdict confirming that Samsung materially breached the joint development and license agreement it entered into Netlist with Netlist in November of twenty fifteen. And the third time Netlist has won the cases won the case on the facts. This verdict confirmed that Netlist's termination of Samsung's license in May 2020 was proper and thus Samsung has been without a patent license for five years.

We We have engaged in a lengthy legal battle with Samsung over the past five years. And three federal district court cases involving five trials Netlist has prevailed in each case. We believe these results reflect the real world value of our patents as well as to resolve and the legal skills necessary to protect them against unauthorized use by large entities like Samsung. Turning now to 2024 results. Netlist delivered strong growth with revenue more than doubling to $147,000,000 The top line performance reflects the recovery in the overall memory market from a year ago period.

The start of 2025 has been some short term has seen some short term softness the market, primarily driven by reduced consumer demand. That said, the outlook for the rest of this year and 2026 remains robust specifically in the high end AI server market. Two major trends that will continue to drive memory growth are HBM, or high bandwidth memory, which enable AI processing and the industry's transition to DDR5. Netlist remains well positioned to capitalize on both of these trends through new product development and its IP portfolio.

On the new products front, we introduced in Q4 of last year, the Lightning brand of ultra low latency memory solution. Lightning delivers double digit percentage improvements memory performance without any changes to ADM or Intel based systems at minimal additional costs. Customers qualifications are ongoing and the product line will benefit from the growth of big data and high frequency trading applications. Also in Q4, we introduced a line of high capacity, high performance MRDIMM products for the AI memory market. MRDIMM is a next generation memory module which replaces the LRDIMM at the high end of the market. LRDIMM was a technology invented by Netlist some fifteen years ago.

And MRDIMM incorporates some of the LRDIMM architecture and then adds power management and MUX features which results in the highest performing DIMM in the history of memory. MR DIMM market is expected to start this year and grow from about $1,000,000,000 in 2025 to over a $5,000,000,000 market in 2027. Netlist has been investing in R and D in the CXL area for the past five years. And we are seeing tangible progress in the next generation CXL and VDIMM. We've started to see the market with proof of concept CXL NVDIMM samples to customers for enterprise and data center applications. CXL will be used as a persistent memory solution on next generation platforms and replace an Intel product called Optane. Which is end of life as of the end of this year. In addition to the new product development work, Netlist remains at the forefront of IP innovation in HBM, DDR5, and AI related memory technologies. In 2024, Netlist increased a number of patents in its portfolio by more than 10%.

P2: Moving to intellectual property, in our organization, We're pleased to announce two recent appointments to the Netlist in house legal team Rich Kim joins Netlist as Vice President of Intellectual Property Strategy. Rich was previously a partner at Duane Morris and at Morrison Forster. And has spent the last thirty years in patent prosecution post grant proceedings IP licensing. He has been consistently ranked as one of the top attorneys in his field. In addition, Raymond Chan, has joined us as Vice President of Patents Raymond has more than two decades of experience in patent prosecution and post grant proceedings. He was most recently a patent litigation partner at Procopio. Excited to have two highly experienced IP experts join our team. 2024 was a successful year and terms of our ability to enforce our IP against unauthorized use as we secured three federal court trial wins. The two patent verdicts rank among the top five damages awards in the semi semiconductor industry. Last year. Over the past two years, we've secured a combined total damages of $866,000,000 for the willful infringement of our patents. These verdicts validate the significant and growing value of Netlist IP and they advance our objective of entering into licensing agreements with unauthorized implementers of our patents.

Over the past twenty five years, Netlist has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in our research and development and the value of that hard work is reflected in the broad work adoption of our technology by the memory industry and the implementation of our IP in the field of AI memory by some of the largest entities in the semiconductor industry. Industry. It is a business reality that large implementers of IP owned by smaller companies do not voluntarily license. The system provides them ample opportunities to delay and hold out. Understanding this, we pursue litigation to create the forcing mechanism necessary for large implementers to license and stop their illegal use of our IP. This past November, the jury in our Second Eastern District case Eastern District Of Texas case against Samsung delivered an unanimous decision ordering Samsung to pay Netlist $118,000,000 and that brings the total damages award to Netlist Samsung to $421,000,000 In December, the court issued a final judgment in this case that validates the jury verdict. The damages award and confirms that Samsung willfully infringed Netlist's patented technologies and that none of the asserted claims are invalid. Shortly after the final judgment was issued, Netlist's six zero eight patent which reads on DDR4 LRDIMM and was asserted against Samsung in the November trial, was upheld by the Patent Trials and Appeals Board and found not to be invalid.

This is the second time the PTAB has upheld the validity of the six zero eight patent. The first being in the IPR filed by Micron in the currently state Western Of Texas case. With the breach of contract win this week, we will continue to vigorously pursue collection of these damages awards from Samsung. As the patent infringement trials and IPR decisions move into the appellate process, we are entering the final phase of litigation for these actions. These cases have moved to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, after which an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court is the only recourse.

However, given the very high hurdle to secure a hearing at the Supreme Court, a first circuit ruling will likely be the final, final for these cases. This makes the Court of Appeals rulings critically important. In March, we secured our first win of the year before the Court of Appeals. The First Circuit issued a judgment affirming the U. S. PTAB's inter parties review decision upholding the validity finding of Netlist's five twenty three patent. This IPR resulted from a preemptive suit Samsung initiated in Delaware against Netlist. And by Samsung's own actions, they now face significant exposure based on billions of dollars of potentially infringing sales of their DDR4. LRDIMM products. The case in Delaware was stayed pending the outcome of the breach of contract dispute with Samsung. And with the verdict this week, we look forward to the case moving forward presenting the facts to a jury. In Delaware. There are currently seven additional IPR appeals involving 10 Netlist patents pending before the Court of Appeals. We expect oral hearings for five more appeals to be conducted in 2025. This includes Netlist Patents three fourteen thirty five, five zero six, three three nine which read on DDR4 LR DEMs and nine eighteen and the 54 patents, which read on DDR5 DIMMs in general.

We are awaiting the assignment of oral hearing dates in all of these cases. But all of these patents are now in the appellate pipeline. Finally, this past January, we participated in the IP Watchdog Conference in Washington D. C. Most attendees are looking forward to what appears to be a more favorable environment for protection of IP rights going forward. This optimism is largely due in part to the new leadership at the U. S. PTO. And the and their approach to intellectual property policy. The new Commerce Secretary who oversees the USPTO is a prolific inventor himself with hundreds of patents to his name and both in The U. S. Both the new U. S. PTO director nominee Mr. Squires and the Deputy Director Ms. Stewart. Have long experiences working with small inventors and startups that depend on the government's protection of intellectual property. Their perspective in the IP domain appears to be more balanced and fair compared to the pro Big Tech Big Law perspective of the previous administration. We are already starting to see tangible changes in terms of new policies coming out of the PTO. Combined with the steady progress we're making over the past few years, in our enforcement campaign and the plans that we have going forward.

And the new pro innovation policies in the government We hope that those combined will help us propel us to positive outcome the coming months and years. Now I'll turn the call over to Gail for the financial review.

P3: For the twelve months ended 12/28/2024, revenue was $147,600,000 an increase of 113%. Compared to the full year ended 12/30/2023. The strong top line results reflected the recovery in the overall memory market from the year ago period. While we do not formally guide, we currently expect first quarter revenue to be moderately down from the first quarter of twenty twenty four due to the short term softness in consumer demand that Chuck alluded to earlier. However, we do anticipate growth revenue for the full year of 2025 as the outlook from industry analysts remains strong. Operating expense for the full year 2024 declined 9.44% driven by reductions in IP legal fees and SG and A. We currently expect a further reduction in legal costs in 2025 as we enter the final phase of litigation for current actions. And a reduction in trials.

P4: interview:

Thank you. Will now begin the question and answer session. Our first question will come from Suji Desilva with ROTH Capital. Please go ahead. Hi, Chuck. Hi, Gail. Congrats on the verdict this week.

So yes, so Chuck maybe the California jury verdict does this in any way change the steps or timelines in pursuing collecting damages from Samsung? I know the appellate process is going on now. Does that Is that impacted by this case and the verdict at all? Or if not, just what's the timeline? Remind us the timeline for appellate case.

-yes, suji

It doesn't affect the appellate timeline at all. The appellate process for the the $33,000,000 I believe that the jury damages from 02/2023 that is the appellate process has already started on that. A few months back sometime late last year.

So that's going to come to a head sometime end of this year. Or early next year. There will be a ruling and that will be it. So no, this will not impact. What happened this to us it opens the door however for for the remainder of the term of our patent all of these patents that will go out till mid-2030s and beyond. So Samsung is now now fully exposed. The The appellate process for the $300 plus million win really those damages were only for past damages through the date of trial. What this when last week does is opens up anything from that from 2023 going forward all the way out to the mid-2030s.

Got it. Very helpful.

And separately with the announcement this week, I think you mentioned that the Google case may become unstayed. Can you confirm that if that's true and the potential timeframe there for any proceeding?

Well, the Google case which is so Samsung their rationale for preemptively suing us We did not sue them. They sued us first on unbelievable, but that's what they do.

So that was based on their claim that they they have a they have to indemnify Google as one of their biggest customers. And but effectively that is Samsung doing the bidding for Google. So the Google case involves the same patent. The 912 patent which is on appeal. So we will see the result of that relative sometime this year the 912.

And once that's decided then I think it's upon that decision that Google case will reopen. That has currently stayed in the Northern District Of California.

Okay. Great. And then lastly on the product revenue Chuck, what is your new product lineup sounds very strong here and has opportunity. When would you think that these new products contribute a material percent of the product revenue versus the resale revenue you have now? And might be the margin profile in the newer products?

The margin profiles for MR DIMMs and CXL and the are going to be in the 20s and 30%. Those will be very good. In terms of the volumes, or actual traction at the customer MR Dems probably later this year. CXL NV it is that is about a that's a very it's a pseudo custom product. So it will take a long time to to test and qualify. And that probably is starting next year. It's about a year's worth of qualification work. Although we're already sampling some big big OEMs and a hyperscaler It's a long design end qualification. But we've been working on that CXL NV4 now five years. So we're in in a good leadership position on that. And then the Lightning brand of ultra low latency products where we're starting to see revenues out of that already. So those two product lines kicked in at the end of last year.

End

We ended 2024 with cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash of $34,600,000 compared to approximately $29,800,000 at the end of Q3 twenty twenty four. With minimal debt. During the fourth quarter, we strengthened our cash position raising $15 through a registered direct offering. In addition, with a $10,000,000 working capital line of credit with Silicon Valley Bank, we continue to maintain significant financial flexibility and liquidity going forward. As always, we manage the operational cash cycle very carefully with days in inventory improved by twenty seven days over 2023, and days in sales improved by seven days year over year. Operator, we are now ready for questions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Netlist_/comments/1jl7khc/netlist_cc_transcription_q4_2024/?share_id=FtU7SPNX9UIBkLbFolFoc&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

TOMKiLA $NLST I had more time to reread the CC transcript and many interesting points emerged.
hong expects:
• hearing cafc of patents 314, 506, 339 (lrdimm) 918 and 054 (ddr5)

• Mrdimm has lrdimm netlist technology and netlist will produce them with 20/30% margins

• cxl hybrdimm is already shipped to many customers and being a customized product it needs time. serious volumes early next year with the definitive farewell of intel optane. (20/30% gross profit too)

• USPTO optimism, netlist really believes in it, in January it participated directly.

• netlist has hired 1/2 patent experts, positive sign.

• netlist has added 10% of new patents in 2024

•Samsung is totally exposed from the damages of 2023 and beyond (beyond 2030).

• micron not cited (expect 90% cafc verdicts) + google cited netlist (now they pay the consequences with 912).

• soon we will see the case of 523!

• ddr5 and HBM will drive the dram market, netlist is positive! (30% growth?)
https://stocktwits.com/TOMKiLA/message/609546450

we will win every trial. no one has a license. thats all you have to remember.

Does this mean: NLST will negotiate after the dispute with Samsung is settled regarding damages and licensing fees?

damages get settled before..... future licensing is up to them on how they want to proceed, if they want to continue selling it they pay, if not, they dont sell our stuff any more. thats about it in a nut shell........

If the trial is delayed or does not go in Netlist's favor, the stock could react very negatively, especially if there is uncertainty about the outcome of the proceedings.

That means we need to pursue a long-term buying strategy, right?
I'm still positive and hope to see good signs at least by the end of the year.

Guys if I dont understud the NLST Earnings Conference Call very well.
The appeal process for these 303 + 118 million USD has already started and is expected to be decided by the end of this year or early next year (2026).

If Netlist wins the case, the damages would likely be paid shortly after the decision (no later than early 2026)."

Does this mean: NLST will negotiate after the dispute with Samsung is settled regarding damages and licensing fees?

Stokd $NLST Because since the first trial—either on appeal by 9th Cir or by Scarsi through summary judgment (can't recall without search)—it was determined and established that if Netlist's interpretation of Sec 6.2 is correct as ruled by the jury # A, that would mean by definition that Samsung breached the JDLA.

Hence the remand retrial was on the interpretation of Sec 6.2—per 9th Circuit as instructed—and not whether Samsung breached...which Samsung attempted to imply otherwise throughout the remand process.

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/609487434

NLST For easy viewing. The 6.2 jury 'Verdict' form. https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2842700/default.png

what i called for 3q 2026 which will happen regardless, hong is saying sooner. thats why i think it was a dynamite chorus call!!!
my .02's worth..........

Not much of a CC.
Sounds like nothing is going to happen until the end of the year, case wise.
So, back in the red we go.
Can we hold a $1

we're gonna get paid!!!!!!!!

hong baby!!! get some!!!

dreams do come true!!! got the site up and ready, says 16 minutes till show time.........

yea like goog wants a buyout lol

USPTO Director Takes Over Requests for Discretionary Denial

This afternoon, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart sent a memorandum to all Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) detailing a new interim process for workload management. To ensure the PTAB can continue to meet its statutory obligations relating to ex parte appeals,

the Director will exercise her discretion under 35 U.S.C. 341(a) and 324(a) to determine whether discretionary denial is appropriate for any petition for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR).

Under this new interim process, decisions on whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) or a post-grant review (PGR) will be bifurcated between the discretionary considerations that will be addressed by the Director and the merits and other statutory considerations.

Very good read bout Stewart, Vidal, PTAB, patents and the future, here: https://schellip.com/new-uspto-leader-what-coke-morgan-stewarts-appointment-may-mean-for-patent-holders/

I'm getting sick and tired of the wild gyrations going on in this market. One day everything is great and the very next day the world is ending. Some days, the market starts off strongly in one direction, only to reverse course at some point and end the day strongly in the OPPOSITE direction.

I wish investors would just sit of on their hands and do nothing until things settle down.

On the Netlist win - I think it's great that Hsu is apparently seeing through Samsung's BS. It certainly looks like once Netlist complies with his requests, he will file the jury verdict and is likely to give his final judgement fairly quickly. His words in that last filing certainly make it seem like he looks upon Samsung's actions with some distaste.

welcome back!!! i hope hong has something to tell us we dont know!!!

Good, I am glad you are buying.
I have some for sell at 1.15.
I bought these for a after trial Win pop that never happen.
Hope to see you there

YesI'm buying now. Corner turned. 
Happy trading. 

Netlist, Inc. : SEC Filing https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/3200/us-sec-filings.html

Netlist, Inc. : Netlist Reports Full Year and Fourth Quarter 2024 Results
https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/2120/us-press-release.html?airportNewsID=40cdc9e8-95e0-42ed-9012-9666d713cfa9

IRVINE, CA / ACCESS Newswire / March 27, 2025 / Netlist, Inc. (OTCQB:NLST) today reported financial results for the full year and fourth quarter ended December 28, 2024.


Recent Highlights:

Net sales for the full year of 2024 increased by 113% to $147.1 million compared to $69.2 million from the same period one year ago.

Gross profit for the full year of 2024 increased by 21% to $2.9 million compared to $2.4 million from the same period one year ago.

"In 2024, Netlist delivered strong revenue growth and made significant progress in intellectual property enforcement. During the year Netlist won patent infringement jury trials against Micron and Samsung, bringing total damages awarded for the willful infringement of its patents to $866 million. As the market for advanced memory continues to expand, Netlist remains well-positioned for growth," said Chief Executive Officer, C.K. Hong.

Net sales for the fourth quarter ended December 28, 2024 were $34.3 million, compared to net sales of $33.4 million for the fourth quarter ended December 30, 2023. Gross profit for the fourth quarter ended December 28, 2024 was $0.3 million, compared to a gross profit of $1.2 million for the fourth quarter ended December 30, 2023.

Net sales for the full year ended December 28, 2024 were $147.1 million, compared to net sales of $69.2 million for the full year ended December 30, 2023. Gross profit for the full year ended December 28, 2024 was $2.9 million, compared to a gross profit of $2.4 million for the full year ended December 30, 2023.

Net loss for the fourth quarter ended December 28, 2024 was ($12.7) million, or ($0.05) per share, compared to a net loss of ($13.2) million in the same period of prior year, or ($0.05) per share. These results include stock-based compensation expense of $0.8 million and $0.9 million for the quarters ended December 28, 2024 and December 30, 2023, respectively.

Net loss for the full year ended December 28, 2024 was ($53.8) million, or ($0.21) per share, compared to a net loss in the prior year period of ($60.4) million, or ($0.25) per share. These results include stock-based compensation expense of $4.4 million and $4.3 million for the full year ended December 28, 2024 and December 30, 2023, respectively.

As of December 28, 2024, cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash were $34.6 million, total assets were $41.8 million, working capital deficit was ($7.3) million, and stockholders' deficit was ($6.0) million.

Conference Call Information
C.K. Hong, Chief Executive Officer, and Gail Sasaki, Chief Financial Officer, will host an investor conference call today, March 27, 2025 at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time to review Netlist's results for the full year and fourth quarter ended December 28, 2024. The live webcast and archived replay of the call can be accessed for 90 days in the Investors section of Netlist's website at www.netlist.com.

About Netlist
Netlist is a leading innovator in advanced memory and storage solutions. With a rich portfolio of patented technologies, Netlist's inventions are foundational to the advancement of AI which is revolutionizing computing. To learn more about Netlist, please visit www.netlist.com.

Safe Harbor Statement
This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements contained in this news release include, without limitation, statements about Netlist's ability to execute on its strategic initiatives, the results of pending litigation, including the second patent infringement jury trial against Samsung, and Netlist's ability to successfully defend its intellectual property. Forward-looking statements are statements other than historical facts and often address future events or Netlist's future performance and reflect management's present expectations regarding future events and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by any forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and other factors include, among others: risks that Samsung will appeal the final order by the trial court for the first Samsung litigation, that the second patent infringement litigation with Samsung may not result in a favorable result for the company, risks that Micron will appeal the final judgment by the trial court (appeals in general could cause a lengthy delay in Netlist's ability to collect damage awards, could overturn the verdicts or reduce the damages awards); risks that Netlist will suffer adverse outcomes in its litigation with Samsung, Micron or Google or in its various other active proceedings to defend the validity of its patents; risks related to Netlist's plans for its intellectual property, including its strategies for monetizing, licensing, expanding, and defending its patent portfolio; risks associated with patent infringement litigation initiated by Netlist, or by others against Netlist, as well as the costs and unpredictability of any such litigation; risks associated with Netlist's product sales, including the market and demand for products sold by Netlist and its ability to successfully develop and launch new products that are attractive to the market; the success of product, joint development and licensing partnerships; the competitive landscape of Netlist's industry; and general economic, political and market conditions, including the ongoing conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Palestine, factory slowdowns and/or shutdowns. All forward-looking statements reflect management's present assumptions, expectations and beliefs regarding future events and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by any forward-looking statements. These and other risks and uncertainties are described in Netlist's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 28, 2024 filed with the SEC on November 7, 2024, and the other filings it makes with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time, including any subsequently filed quarterly and current reports. In particular, you are encouraged to review the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2024 that will be filed with the SEC for any revisions or updates to the information in this release. In light of these risks, uncertainties and other factors, these forward-looking statements should not be relied on as predictions of future events. These forward-looking statements represent Netlist's assumptions, expectations and beliefs only as of the date they are made, and except as required by law, Netlist undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements for any reason.

Investor Relations Contacts:
Mike Smargiassi
The Plunkett Group
NLST@theplunkettgroup.com
(212) 739-6729

Gail M. Sasaki
Netlist, Inc., Chief Financial Officer
gsasaki@netlist.com
(949) 435-0025

NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In thousands) (Unaudited)


December 28,



December 30,



2024



2023


ASSETS


Current assets:






Cash and cash equivalents

$

22,507



$

40,445


Restricted cash


12,100




12,400


Accounts receivable, net


1,671




4,562


Inventories


2,744




12,031


Prepaid expenses and other current assets


733




441


Total current assets


39,755




69,879










Property and equipment, net


517




770


Operating lease right-of-use assets


1,101




1,590


Other assets


466




560


Total assets

$

41,839



$

72,799










LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (DEFICIT)


Current liabilities:








Accounts payable

$

42,307



$

39,831


Revolving line of credit


1,230




3,844


Accrued payroll and related liabilities


808




1,346


Deferred revenue


40




-


Other current liabilities


2,675




2,569


Total current liabilities


47,060




47,590


Operating lease liabilities


641




1,213


Other liabilities


186




237


Total liabilities


47,887




49,040










Commitments and contingencies
















Stockholders' equity (deficit):








Preferred stock


-




-


Common stock


273




254


Additional paid-in capital


331,367




307,328


Accumulated deficit


(337,688

)



(283,823

)

Total stockholders' equity (deficit)


(6,048

)



23,759


Total liabilities and stockholders' equity (deficit)

$

41,839



$

72,799


NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(In thousands, except per share amounts) (Unaudited)



Three Months Ended




Year Ended



December 28,



December 30,



December 28,



December 30,



2024



2023



2024



2023














Net sales

$

34,275



$

33,433



$

147,103



$

69,205


Cost of sales(1)


34,021




32,279




144,219




66,812


Gross profit


254




1,154




2,884




2,393


Operating expenses:
















Research and development(1)


1,077




2,340




8,064




9,164


Intellectual property legal fees


9,555




9,664




37,958




42,572


Selling, general and administrative(1)


2,737




2,899




12,090




12,414


Total operating expenses


13,369




14,903




58,112




64,150


Operating loss


(13,115

)



(13,749

)



(55,228

)



(61,757

)

Other income, net:
















Interest income, net


252




460




1,048




1,300


Other income, net


149




46




316




60


Total other income, net


401




506




1,364




1,360


Loss before provision for income taxes


(12,714

)



(13,243

)



(53,864

)



(60,397

)

Provision for income taxes


-




-




1




1


Net loss

$

(12,714

)


$

(13,243

)


$

(53,865

)


$

(60,398

)

















Loss per common share:
















Basic and diluted

$

(0.05

)


$

(0.05

)


$

(0.21

)


$

(0.25

)

Weighted-average common shares outstanding:
















Basic and diluted


270,089




253,547




259,904




244,118


































(1) Amounts include stock-based compensation expense as follows:
































Cost of sales

$

17



$

20



$

99



$

110


Research and development


110




184




908




875


Selling, general and administrative


677




715




3,429




3,352


Total stock-based compensation

$

804



$

919



$

4,436



$

4,337


SOURCE: Netlist, Inc.

Netlist Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast
Thursday, March 27, 2025 at 12:00 PM EDT
https://event.choruscall.com/mediaframe/webcast.html?webcastid=N8CeMQUF

wow.....12 docs dropped so far today....... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17206527/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

but it does mean, no one has a license!!! one of these days.............

Stokd $NLST Somehow in the thought process of writing the below post, I forgot to infer where I was going with it and the point's purpose.

With all the below said, it means that the judge on our currently stayed DE Samsung/Google case with the CAFC affirmed 523 patent will not prolong the stay, judge Hall has to abide by the law and honor the effect of the BOC verdict once final judgment is issued by judge Hsu.

Judge Hall has no choice, this is the judicial branch, the legal process of which will be adhered to...unlike the PTAB final decisions coming from administrative judges with no binding authority. Hence they have no preclusive effect and must be affirmed by CAFC first before becoming binding.

I'll reiterate...information is power...experience carries weight...awareness of prior cases helps. Learning about the process/procedures of the courts and factors involved in Netlist's litigation is key to feeling content with where things are as things unfold and progress...know the road map!

Stokd $NLST All anyone has to do is a simple search to find that an appeal does not prevent the trial courts final judgment to go in effect...very clear and established.

“Generally, filing an appeal does not automatically stay the effect of a final judgment or trial verdict; the order usually goes into effect immediately. However, the appealing party can file a motion to stay the judgment, and if granted, the original order is temporarily paused until the appeal is resolved.” ——— “When a court renders a final judgment, the order typically takes effect immediately, meaning the winning party can begin enforcing it.”

Appealing party can motion to stay judgment, but BOC is not a patent case with damages, judge has no reason to stay and won't—Samsung never even sought stay after losing initial BOC trial.

Whereas with a patent infringement case/trial, damages are not paid till CAFC affirmation...unlike BOC where the effect of final judgment by judge affirming the verdict is immediate and binding.
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/2811601/default.png

if only unlicensed meant you couldn't sell product this case would be over.