Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) Quote

great article, thats exactly whats going on. hes got my vote, but just like he says, it takes big money to go after these criminals because their tentacles are ever so deep into everything, they do nothing but hinder the process. even the process of going after them!!!

Yeah, Congressman Massie is one of the good guys for sure when it comes to protecting patent rights. He lost his wife a few weeks ago so thoughts and prayers for him. He is on the IP Subcommittee and introduced H.R 5874 back in 2021 which would restore patent rights back to their original protections as they were before the AIA "America Invents Act" was passed by congress. But so far that legislation has languished and hasn't been brought up for a vote. One of the major problems with getting anything done to repair our patent system is Congressman Darrell Issa of California who is the Chair of the IP Subcommittee and one of the sponsors and main drivers of getting the America Invents Act passed back in 2011 which established the PTAB and all of the following carnage caused by it to the patent rights of small mom and pop inventors and small innovative companies like Netlist.

Issa has also introduced legislation since the AIA was passed which again would be detrimental to patent owner protection. Issa himself has 37 patents and became rich using the original US patent system to protect his patents pertaining to anti-theft technology, which he licensed to the auto industry, then after being elected to congress, he has worked to destroy the very system which made him rich. Go figure. Maybe for campaign financing from you know who in California? I'll give you a hint, he is a darling with the Silicon Valley big tech crowd. Here is a good read on what small patent owners are up against and why Thomas Massie's legislation H.R.5874 needs to be reintroduced and passed by congress. Here is a good read explaining what we are up against.
https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/04/13/money-media-votes-passing-hr-5874/id=148330/

last paragraph pg.2............ The parties jointly seek this short extension of Netlist’s deadline to file its bill of
costs to August 1, 2024 to resolve the remaining disputes with the items listed in
Netlist’s bill of costs. No other deadlines are amended at this time.
Dated: July 25, 2024

to me its saying, go on with your bad self, there are no more disruptions at the moment. hey,,,,, i just got a kick out of it thats all!!! ................. its about time for a little cafc wouldnt you say? get some baby!!!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216365/gov.uscourts.txed.216365.152.0.pdf

What is the context of that post? What other deadlines are you referring to?

No other deadlines are amended at this time.

lets do this!!! get it done!!!

We might see Microns appeal of the #00294 case any day now. If they decide to appeal, it is typically filed 2 -4 weeks after the final verdict (which was July 11th).

Case 2:22-cv-00294-JRG Document 152-1 Filed 07/25/24

Latest filing in the #00294 case is for Netlist extension of time request, to file costs of litigation. Gilstrap approved the request.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216365/gov.uscourts.txed.216365.152.0.pdf

The Court, having considered the Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Netlist’s Motion for Costs, is of the opinion that said motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NLST glad someone is fighting infringers in scumgress
Rep. Thomas Massie: The Constitution Protects Inventors, Not "Public Interest" Thieves 7/23/24

BolliverShagnasty $NLST Just a reminder but when Samsung settled with Rambus they had to buy a couple hundred million Shares as I recall.......... Food for thought....
https://stocktwits.com/BolliverShagnasty/message/580712317

NLST And coverage in another article — full read available.

"Netlist has been on a legal winning streak, securing significant verdicts in patent infringement cases against industry giants Samsung and Micron. The company's price target was raised to $4.00 from $2.00 by Roth/MKM, maintaining a Buy rating, following a $445 million jury verdict in Texas. This positive outcome, along with a prior favorable decision in a $300+ million patent litigation with Samsung, underscores the strength of Netlist's memory patent portfolio."

"The Court's recent denial of Samsung's post-trial motions effectively ends the district court stage of the legal process."

"The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the memory and storage industry, particularly as it pertains to the development and use of AI technologies."

"Netlist's victory in this case reaffirms the validity of its patents and may influence the company's ongoing litigation with other industry players."
https://www.investing.com/news/company-news/netlist-prevails-in-patent-case-against-samsung-93CH-3533429

Stokd $NLST It should be understood that raising cash is a necessary evil that accompanies what Netlist has to go through in getting justice and value for their patents.

We’re here for a bigger purpose, and offerings/dilution are a means to that end, and should be looked at as a life saver instead of a negative.

This is not just another stock, litigation and patent challenges are the most important element for Netlist, with it comes the defendants strategy of delay. Without the dilutive cash raising opportunity/factor, Netlist would not have the ability to finish litigation—in which they are prevailing.

IMO, what ever it takes to get to the litigative end with the best attorneys and resources possible, is acceptable by me. Again, the circumstances surrounding our situation right now are trully unique and specific. So let’s not judge the financials, metrics, fundamentals, and offerings, like another company that's not going through what Netlist has/is.

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580708694.png

NLST OTC Short Interest report for the period ending 07/15.

Short interest increased 696,180 shares (7.49%) to a total of 9,986,365 shares (up from 9,290,185 shares on 06/28). Roughly 11 days to cover.

Once NLST actually gets money into their accounts from these court awards? This is going to squeeze and FLY!

we're gonna be alright. the s-3 is something we've had in place for many years and re new it when it expires. doesnt mean hongs gonna use it, but if needed its there. looking forward to the cc.

Netlist is looking ahead to their capital requirements, in these patent fights. Yes, it's dilution. No doubt about it. But this is a clear message to Samsung, Google and Micron. NLST will not give up this fight and they have already been successful in the court room to the tune of almost a billion dollars. In just about a month, NLST will likely see yet another $500M to $1B damages award from another court battle won. Yup. It's costing NLST hundreds of millions of dollars. But the big three are looking at losses of billions.

Meanwhile, the system is beginning to perceive the unfair way the PTAB operates, how it favors large companies and destroys innovation from smaller companies.

There's more time here to wait. But I believe the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter.

nlst S-3 Securities Registration Statement (simplified form) Jul 24, 2024 i am not in the mood to read 60 some pages tonight !!! and i cant cut the link to get it here,
https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/3200/us-sec-filings.html

your too late for the booze but i do appreciate the gesture!!! i've been retired from the spirit world since 8-13-90 when i drank canada dry............those.......were.....the days.........my friend...........etc, etc....

When this blows up we all need to meet up and buy striper a beer. He has kept this forum alive

lol!!! i will not tell a lie, yup. but i did say, i'd never eat that gmo jelly fish medicine and wont!! oh yeah, time for me to go have dinner. that one i forget too sometimes, but the gut always reminds me. good to know some things still work!!!

Oh, so you have that problem too! If you haven't tried Prevagen yet... don't... because it doesn't work! Thanks for all you do for this board Striper.

"before i forget"

it will be interesting to see how our manipulation plays their game when that money hits our balance sheet, enough said!!!

its a waiting game now. money in the bank plus interest. clock is ticking.

before i forget, listening to hongs demeanor in the cc on the 30th should be interesting on where he see's things going.

yes it is, and i think, in fact i know, the reading i've done pertaining to this position far exceeds anything else i've ever involved myself in. its just the process of how the judicial system actually works that is mind blowing when you actually have to run its full course to get justice. depending on where your company is in the spectrum of the playing field compared to where your opponent is when you start. in our case we started at 0-1 degree and the other 3 sat at 180, and that is what determines the difficulty in winning. but if you make it to the end and can prove your case...................

i think its safe to say we now sit above them on the legal front with the final phase of when do we get paid being the next step. when we get the cafc decision the pps will move.

That is quite a read. Long and technical. But satisfying! Screw you Samsung!

nlst more than pushing back, winning. this has got to hurt, broken ribs at the least???
https://media3.giphy.com/media/mb410b43HO7aU/giphy.gif?cid=9191ed4cmp1cyd51jpt32qe108jz08orrx2oh2ip74gdpeai&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

Samsung Loses Bid to Overturn $303 Million Patent Verdict: A Significant Win for Netlist Inc. (NLST)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/samsung-loses-bid-overturn-303-million-patent-verdict-gary-wallach-7ajhc/

$NLST III. SAMSUNG HAS NOT SHOWN GOOD CAUSE

Samsung does not even mention, much less attempt to meet, its burden to satisfy the good cause standard for re-opening discovery. In the Ninth Circuit, a movant must present the required basis for a motion in its opening papers or “it has been waived.”

Nor could Samsung meet its burden.

Samsung’s conduct in refusing during discovery and before trial exactly what it now seeks, to shield itself from sanctions and harmful documents, then reversing course in an attempt to fish for “missing” documents post-trial, is the antithesis of good cause.

whole article............ NLST law360-article
https://stocktwits.com/Orry/message/580506295

"Samsung Loses Bid To Throw Out $303 M Patent Verdict"

"A Texas federal judge shot down Samsung's attempt to throw out a $303 million verdict over infringement of server memory patents, saying the South Korean electronics giant's arguments that Netlist's comments prejudiced it during trial fell short in a July 12 opinion that was unsealed Tuesday."

Presumably, Samsung has 30 days from July 12th to appeal.

The rest is behind a paywall, unfortunately.

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580500806.png

Samsung Loses Bid To Throw Out $303M Patent Verdict
https://www.law360.com/articles/1861267

$NLST Something even juicier….there’s a 🔥 of a doc filed in the BOC case Friday by SHEASBY — NETLIST’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND DISCOVERY RELATED THERETO — which really exposes Samsung’s slanderous spin. It addresses their post trial nonsense/games — with nothing to lose — as Sheasby points out.

I urge everyone to read it. It’s not technical, but a detailed history of events and specifics, reads easy and just gets better, worth the 20pgs. Remember, we won this trial, so it's Samsung's burden.
You'll sleep better...

It’s not only informative and addresses Samsung’s post trial motions/arguments, but shows the prevalence and depth of their misrepresentations….they’ll go to any length, but our attorneys are on it, and so are judges.

I am very content here, that the BOC case will conclude in Netlist’s favor…through Scarsi and/or any appeal. Read this document….Samsung is in a losing position IMO. This is really great work!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.605.0.pdf

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580499444.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/580499444

Stokd $NLST Got the link to work, at least this time.
Gilstrap's 463 case Memorandum Opinion And Order DENYING Samsung's JMOL & New Trial.

It is 64pgs long, but a great and worthy read, methodically breaks down Samsung's arguments, and exposes how inaccurate and futile their position is....indicating the strength of our position heading into appeal. Gets technical in the patent section, so feel free to scroll onto other subject matter.

This should provide serious conviction, because it's Gilstrap's answer to Samsung and their claims of anything they can find to dispute from the case/trial. It's the basis for their CAFC appeal....essentially, they are up against Gilstrap and this document.

How do you think the CAFC is going to see it...especially given Gilstrap cites CAFC precedent and case law to form his decision/opinion. We have not only the best counsel representing us, but also the best judge.

Actual doc is dated 7/12, but filed only today due to redacting.

Link- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.211544/gov.uscourts.txed.211544.608.1.pdf

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580497169.png

NETLIST SECURES ORDER FINALIZING $303 MILLION DAMAGES AWARD AGAINST SAMSUNG

-Denial of Samsung's Post-Trial Motions Concludes Trial Process-

IRVINE, CA / ACCESSWIRE / July 24, 2024 / Netlist, Inc. (OTCQB:NLST) today announced the denial of Samsung's post-trial motions in the case of Netlist v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (EDTX Case No. 2:21-cv-00463-JRG) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ("the Court").

The Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, denying post-trial motions, combined with the Final Judgment, entered in August 2023 bring this case to a close in the District Court. The Court has upheld the jury's verdict and damages award in the April 2023 trial and confirmed that Samsung willfully infringed Netlist's patented technologies and that none of the asserted claims are invalid. Netlist's patents in the April trial cover both high bandwidth memory or HBM and DDR5 memory that are foundational to generative artificial intelligence ("AI") computing. The $303,150,000 award was granted as a reasonable royalty for Samsung's infringement of Netlist's patents for a limited past damages period.

C.K. Hong, Netlist's Chief Executive Officer, said, "This court order reaffirms Samsung's willful infringement, the jury's finding of validity and the reasonableness of the jury's damages award. We believe the value of Netlist's technology will continue to grow due to its importance to the enablement of AI."

Additional information about Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. EDTX Case No. 2:21-cv-00463-JRG is available through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service.

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.

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 are statements other than historical facts and often address future events or Netlist's future performance. Forward-looking statements contained in this news release include statements about Netlist's ability to execute on its strategic initiatives. All forward-looking statements 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 judgment by the District Court which could cause a lengthy delay in Netlist's ability to collect the damage award or overturn the verdict or reduce the damages award; risks that Netlist will suffer adverse outcomes in its pending 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 quarantines, factory slowdowns and/or shutdowns. The military conflict between Russia and Ukraine may increase the likelihood of supply interruptions. 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 annual report on Form 10-K for its most recently completed fiscal year filed on February 23, 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 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.

For more information, please contact:
Investors/Media
The Plunkett Group
Mike Smargiassi
NLST@theplunkettgroup.com
(212) 739-6729

SOURCE: Netlist, Inc.



View the original press release on accesswire.com

https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/2120/us-press-release.html?airportNewsID=d5437d1e-5a04-472f-9086-e23c0c6e9545

Latest Litigation chart (07/23) courtesy of Stokd

i hear ya!!! i wonder how much that will be improved upon in say a mere 5 years........

Whoa! And I thought my 7.2GT/s DDR5 was fast. My lord.

JEDEC's new standards will double DDR5 bandwidth, enable faster memory for laptops — DDR5 MRDIMM and LPDDR6 standards for next-generation servers and laptops being ratified

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ram/jedec-new-standards-will-double-ddr5-bandwidth-enable-faster-memory-for-laptops

SilviaJ $NLST Rise of HBM boosts DRAM revenue

TrendForce estimates that benefiting from an increase in average DRAM prices by 53% in 2024 and 35% in 2025.

DRAM revenue will reach US$90.7 billion in 2024 and $136.5 billion in 2025.

TrendForce identifies four key factors driving the revenue growth of DRAM:
1) The rise of HBM
2) The generational evolution of DRAM products
3) Restrained capital expenditures limiting supply
4) The recovery in server demand.

Compared to general DRAM, HBM not only boosts bit demand but also raises the industry’s average price. HBM is expected to contribute 5% of DRAM bit shipments and 20% of revenue in 2024.

Additionally, the penetration of high-value products like DDR5 will help raise the industry’s average price. TrendForce estimates that DDR5 will account for 40% of server DRAM bit shipments in 2024, increasing to 60–65% in 2025.

https://stocktwits.com/SilviaJ/message/580475519

$NLST *Netlist Litigation Chart*
Updated 7-23-24 to reflect where things stand currently as of today's developments in the Samsung 463 case — case # circled in red.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580471918.png

Stokd $NLST More good news 🔥, this time from the PTAB—if you can believe it—denying Micron’s petition and joinder to Samsung’s 608 IPR.

Remember, Micron’s petition for 608 IPR in the WD-TX case was denied institution—608 patent valid. Then later Netlist asserted the 608 in the Samsung 293 case, and Samsung filed an IPR petition—which was granted.

In Jan 2024 Micron petitioned to join Samsung’s 608 IPR, which the PTAB just denied both...Micron’s petition and joinder.

This is also good news for the stayed—till conclusion of PTAB validated 314 appeal by Micron—WD case, as another matter/issue is resolved….with only the 314 appeal standing in the way of lifting the stay and resuming the case to Claim Construction.

https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1555110/download-documents?artifactId=mptvN2equz9KWmWKp6HR__ti3jswX5FFBKEm6d2H9EGhXWfeilOYMCc

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580434383.png

NLST BABY !!! GET SOME !!!

Stokd $NLST This is the fact and reality of the matter as it currently stands—from Gilstrap—regardless how Samsung tries to spin it.

Finally moving on in the 463 case, Samsung's clock to initiate a CAFC appeal has started....tick tock.

"The Court finds that the Final Judgment should not be vacated and the case should not be stayed. The JDLA is not currently “in full force and effect,” as Samsung contends. Since the filing of Samsung’s Motion to Stay, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Netlist in the California Action finding that Samsung breached the JDLA. Samsung did not prevail in the California Action as it speculated that it would in its Motion to Stay. Accordingly, all grounds upon which Samsung moved to vacate the verdict and stay the case are now moot."

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580412475.png

Stokd $NLST 🔥 And also another loss to Samsung in 463 case — Gilstrap 🔥DENIED🔥 Samsung's Motion to Vacate the Judgment and Stay Due to the Ninth Circuit’s Decision as MOOT!

Which clearly shows—in case there was any doubt—that Gilstrap understands the BOC case/trial verdict stands unless and until overturned on appeal or through post trial procedure, and he is not waiting for anything in the BOC case with respect to relevance in this 463 case.

Again...the app making docs/link publicly accessible for full read is not working.

"Before the Court is the Motion to Vacate the Judgment and Stay Due to the Ninth Circuit’s Decision (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Samsung. (Dkt. No. 576.) In the Motion, Samsung asks that the court vacate the judgement against it and stay the case pending resolution of another action. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) opposes the Motion. (See Dkt. No. 582.) For the following reasons, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED AS MOOT."

https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_580411231.png

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

Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 609 Filed 07/23/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 69366

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.211544/gov.uscourts.txed.211544.609.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.211544/gov.uscourts.txed.211544.609.1.pdf

we gett'n paid!!!

EXCELLENT eom.

From Stokd: $NLST Congratulations folks!!!
Our first winning trial/case has officially fully concluded, with all post trial matters decided/resolved. There is nothing left to do except await Samsung's filing of CAFC appeal....which—as we know—has a 7% chance of success as a Gilstrap case.
We now progress on our way to CAFC affirmation and ultimate finality, which is when damages will be paid—a material event!

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/580414129

Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 609-1 Filed 07/23/24

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.211544/gov.uscourts.txed.211544.609.1.pdf

The Court finds that the Final Judgment should not be vacated and the case should not be stayed. The JDLA is not currently “in full force and effect,” as Samsung contends. Since the filing of Samsung’s Motion to Stay, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Netlist in the California Action finding that Samsung breached the JDLA. Samsung did not prevail in the California Action as it speculated that it would in its Motion to Stay. Accordingly, all grounds upon which Samsung moved to vacate the verdict and stay the case are now moot.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Motion (Dkt. No. 576) should be and
hereby is DENIED AS MOOT.