Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) Quote

Buyside volume bullish. Volumes bullish. Accumulation phase works for me. I'll buy when I can. 

Well, NLST is at a new 4 year low of .61.
With probably another year of court cases to get through,
Is the 5 years low of .4211 around the corner?

Stokd $NLST When posting procedural/irrelevant docs during market hours without an explanation, let's be aware of how things can be perceived, how fud can spin it, and any unnecessary confusion that can lead to negative price action.

A simple search of the legal meaning will give insight that will probably prevent the posting, delay till after close, or at least prompt an inclusion of an explanation or additional information.

"Leave to file document under seal" simply asks the judge to seal the doc or redact certain parts. All of the docs related to today's seal filings have already been filed and posted/read by this board...excluding the redactions which after today's rulings will stay redacted.

It's most likely just information related to the jurors in question intended to remain private. It's a bit of retroactive action and nothing to do with the future or what we're awaiting in this BOC case.

All briefing is done, awaiting parties doc on how judge can interview jurors.

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5036197/default.png

Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (8:20-cv-00993)
District Court, C.D. California
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.1.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.1.1.pdf

The end result will be positive. The risk to reward is only time driven . In the end NLST will prevail. The major powers are all defeated. SK Hynix will benefit . .70 to $7.00 and people still aren't satisfied. The new technology coming that nobody can deny the patents too. You can't change the past . You learn from your mistakes. SK HYNIX and NLST they appreciate each other Samsung showed their true colors . Shame and guilt . SK Hynix will carry Hong on their shoulders. David and Goliath and now David and Goliath work together . 

Yes, to all the above!
But to add some negative to it, I think that the Idea that Chuck buying those shares was some type of "signal."
I don't.
I just think that in order for Chuck to get someone to buy NLST shares, even at .70, the buyer said to Chuck; put up some of your own money to show us some faith in your own company.
And even if it was a signal, it sure doesn't seem to be working too well as the share price has been ever since!

well, yes it does always sound positive because the positive far exceeds the negative. that is the reality. now on the other hand you have a reality that doesnt want that to become one. weigh the difference and your conclusion is why your still here. when i got involved in this i would of never fathomed that i'd be here this long. remember, money cant buy you love, but it sure in hell can @#%& everything up along the way.........

we'll be ok, and i hate say'n one of these days, but thats what we're left with.

if i had cash i'd be buying gonzo under hongs pps just so my current position would be totally free. face it, hongs 3mil buy wasnt long term like we have been. he knows something is in the pipeline and is betting on it. thats why we shareholders dont get a wack at those offerings. if i could buy on hongs terms i'd be selling first chance i get to have free trading shares and principal back. thats why we aint privy to those deals...... i mean its only common sense. who wouldnt want a free non worry position?

Everything on this NLST message board always sounds so positive. And yet we always seem to be going down. I'd like a balance. Is there any reason for our pathetic stock price? Dilution, Manipulation, the powerful infringers keeping us down? Is there any possibility we don't win all, most, some, any of the appeals? Is the 'unknown' what keeps us down? Is it the never ending delays? I honestly just don't understand. You buy for future share price appreciation. We've done it here for years, but why isn't it happening?

FYI - I bought more today at .62. I've held off buying for a while, but Chuck buying was my signal and I've started buying again to get my averages down. I hope I'm reading his buy signal correctly.

the 912 saga, both ai and human orientated.......remember we already actually won this against google at cafc....... https://investors.netlist.com/websites/netlist/English/2120/us-press-release.html?airportNewsID=b9be6faf-dc5d-4920-9032-bf88d55582ef

Netlist Prevails against Google at the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

IRVINE, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 16, 2020 / Netlist, Inc. (OTCQX:NLST) announced that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has affirmed the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision upholding the validity of Netlist's U.S. 7,619,912 (‘912) patent. 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.

"For ten years Netlist has steadfastly opposed Google's misguided campaign to invalidate the ‘912 patent," said Netlist's CEO, C.K. Hong. "We are very pleased that in the end the appellate court made it clear that the claims of this seminal patent are indeed valid and in so doing, further vindicate our decade-long defense of the company's strategic intellectual property. We will now move to lift the stay in the patent infringement lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA., in order to recover current and past damages related to the ‘912 patent."

In response to Netlist's 2009 complaint, Google first filed its petition for reexamination of the '912 patent in 2010 and was later joined in its effort by Inphi and Smart Modular. On January 31, 2019 PTAB denied Google's request for a rehearing of the PTAB's previous decision upholding the validity of the '912 patent claims. The PTAB's extensive rehearing decision adopted Netlist's positions on the claims and rejected Google's invalidity arguments involving the specific use of rank-selecting signals for rank multiplication.

Netlist believes that the teachings of the '912 patent can be found in various DDR3 and DDR4 server DIMMs (Dual Inline Memory Module) as well as future products that will be produced under the DDR5 server DIMM standards currently being established by the industry.

About Netlist

Netlist provides high-performance SSDs and modular memory subsystems to enterprise customers in diverse industries. The Company's NVMe™ SSD portfolio provides industry-leading performance offered in multiple capacities and form factors. HybriDIMM™, Netlist's next-generation storage class memory product, addresses the growing need for real-time analytics in Big Data applications, in-memory databases, high-performance computing and advanced data storage solutions. Netlist also manufactures a line of specialty and legacy memory products to storage customers, appliance customers, system builders and cloud and datacenter customers. Netlist holds a portfolio of patents in the areas of server memory, hybrid memory, storage class memory, rank multiplication and load reduction. To learn more, 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 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, such as its ongoing proceedings against SK hynix Inc., 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 or shutdowns, and travel restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 March 10, 2020, 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/Sharon Oh
NLST@theplunkettgroup.com
(212) 739-6729

SOURCE: Netlist, Inc. via EQS Newswire



View source version on accesswire.com:
https://www.accesswire.com/594039/Netlist-Prevails-against-Google-at-the-US-Federal-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals

ai and human opinion.........

$NLST Based on the provided information, it is plausible that the
CAFC could overturn the recent PTAB ruling regarding the invalidity of a claim in Netlist's '912 patent.
Here's why: CAFC precedent of upholding the '912 patent's validity: In 2020, the CAFC affirmed a prior PTAB decision that had upheld the validity of the '912 patent claims. This prior ruling from the CAFC is highly significant and would be a strong factor in their consideration of the recent PTAB decision.
Vidal was the key factor in the reexamination of patent 912, allowing new claims construction, along with multiple other factors that should not have allowed the IPR to take place.

She should be the focus of a congressional investigation of what is wrong with a system that allows such a conflicted person to target a seminal patent. featuring Netlist

we're gonna win this dam thing and get paid, live long and prosper, viva la chunk!!!

2nd generation HBM patent approved and NLST initiates litigation ASAP
new HBM litigation for a newly issued HBM patent ('087)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US12308087B2/en?oq=12%2c308%2c087

The new patent is for HBM and is derived from the previous HBM patents ('060 and '160) which have been deemed "unpatentable" by the PTAB. An uphill climb for NLST and one the Big Three will not back down from given the amount of Revenue involved for AI and Data Centers in general.

NLST has filed separate litigation in EDTX (Judge Gilstrap) against Samsung and Micron

NLST filed a day early and had to file again the next day plus file to remove the early filings !

This patent must be really important for Samsung to file ASAP. Maybe below is why it is so important.

https://www.bloomberg.com/company/press/high-bandwidth-memory-chip-market-could-grow-to-130-billion-by-2033-according-to-bloomberg-intelligence/

Data Centers and AI have no need for RDIMMs or LRDIMMs anymore; no wonder NLST closed the China manufacturing effort.

https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/articles/intel-jumps-hbm4-jaguar-shores-172242909.html

First to file litigation was NLST in EDTX (Judge Gilstrap) and Samsung filed in DE (Judge Hall) and First to File usually becomes the jurisdiction for the litigation.

Judge Gilstrap is already scheduling Hearings !

65 K buy blocks even better. 

SAP’s Mandamus Petition Challenging Trump Admin’s Discretionary Denial Policy Shift
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2025/07/mandamus-challenging-discretionary.html

PTAB’s New “Settled Expectations” Doctrine

https://patentlyo.com/

Ongoing Fintiv Expansion Under Fire
July 7, 2025
Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart has steadily expanded the use of discretionary denials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) since assuming her role in January. After withdrawing guidance from her predecessor, Kathi Vidal, that limited such denials based on parallel litigation under the NHK-Fintiv rule, Stewart has imposed a broader set of factors upon which a PTAB petition can be denied and has taken over the discretionary denial process herself as part of a new two-stage institution process. Since then, the acting director has applied these new factors extensively, even applying them to pending inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed before the withdrawal of the Vidal guidance—prompting two recent mandamus petitions from impacted petitioners, and a subsequent series of amicus briefs from industry stakeholders. Meanwhile, Stewart has issued a series of decisions that could further increase the use of discretionary denials, including one that could curtail IPRs against patents that have been in force longer, due to “settled expectations”.
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/87231-ongoing-fintiv-expansion-under-fire

Stokd $NLST BTW, something went unnoticed as of June 5th. We often hear a phrase from the haters — "The infringing parties will just go to the Supreme Court if they lose at CAFC, so it's not over."

A party has 90 days from entry of judgment to petition the Supreme Court. CAFC judgment on the 523 patent was on March 5th which puts us well past the 90 day mark...FYI! 🍻

It's definitely over for Samsung & Google with respect to validity of the 523 patent, the sole patent in the case, and they're not even going to try SCOTUS....that speaks volumes!
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5014331/default.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/620021115

55 K Buy blocks today. Let's go !

thx u

Here ya go gdog

https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/NLST/ratings/sell-side-ratings

thxs

No link, it was in my daily email digest


Pre-market summary on your portfolio: Portfolio 1
Pre-market Portfolio Digest

link please

Can anyone believe this? Courtesy of SA:

Rating Upgrades
NLST Quant Rating Strong Sell to Hold
NLST Wall St. Analysts Rating Buy to Strong Buy
See all ratings »

European trading suggests a reasonable rebound in price here in the states. Lets go Netty! Volume continues and we have a nice week ahead too imho. 

$NLST Up .14 cents in Zimbabwe trading..................

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqmyxDqpPl4NDrecTm12pahaq1Qt-IfWkBvh2BIG7oz0yRuYa7ux6XFk49kETgtdw3WnRXvWmRetfs7m9rmsDFWWifYmJbXYsD9TSsSxu8HKetoGC72xfM

A response brief was filed in Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a utility patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that attracted an amicus brief filed by the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs. In its opening brief, Netlist contended that, in prior reexaminations, the PTAB and the patent examiner consistently interpreted the relevant claim language to require “transmission of a command signal to only one DDR memory device at a time when there is a plurality of memory devices in a rank.” That construction, Netlist argued, is based on the claim’s text, the patent’s specification, and extensive prosecution history. Moreover, Netlist pointed out, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision upholding the claim in the prior reexaminations. Yet, in this inter partes review, it continued, the PTAB adopted a diametrically opposed reading of the claim language.

Now, in its response brief, Samsung argues “[t]he Board properly assessed the claim language, specification, and prosecution history, as well as extrinsic evidence” to reach the correct construction, which it says “encompasses one or more memory devices.” With regard to the written description, Samsung maintains “Netlist’s focus on other examples of multi-device ranks is perfectly consistent with a ‘one or more’ construction and fails to offer any support for importing a ‘plurality’ limitation.” Furthermore, it argues, “[t]he Board correctly assessed the full language . . . and properly concluded” that in the reexamination the claim at issue was “not construe[d] . . . to require multiple-device ranks.” Thus, it concludes, “[t]he Board’s analysis properly applied this Court’s approach to claim construction and should be affirmed.”

scroll down mid page..........

https://fedcircuitblog.com/2025/06/30/update-on-important-panel-activity-63/

but the am pm indoctrination of it is much more liberating than just ''a'' holiday........

4/20 is Independence Day Jr.

Stokd $NLST To add to the discussion @MACDgou & @Famouschild are engaged in. It's even better with Gilstrap, only 9% CAFC reversal rate / 91% affirm.

And of course invalidation of one claim does not invalidate the whole patent nor dismiss/reverse the full awarded judgment.

You tag Saucerhead so figure he's spewing this nonsense. It's easy to search/verify, and more to it, so not sure if he's off upstairs or makes it up hoping some are naive or lazy. Thinks he'll get away with being blocked by many, so thanks guys, these specifics/nuances are key.

"Judge Gilstrap's reversal rate at the Federal Circuit is an incredibly low 9%, which is significantly lower than the still impressive rates of other very experienced judges in patent-heavy districts."

"Generally, no, a patent judgment is not automatically dismissed if one claim is invalidated, especially if the judgment is for all claims."

"No, if one claim of a patent is invalidated, it does not automatically mean the entire judgment is dismissed."

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5004226/default.png
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5004229/default.png
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/5004230/default.png

thread........... https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/619985819

Accumulation is in order. Happy trading. 

Well, I'll answer. But only if you'll keep in mind while you're reading my answer that I am a long here and I want Netlist to collect EVERY PENNY that's been awarded to them, in EVERY lawsuit they've won (or will win). We all know that Samsung, Micron and Google are using Netlist IP illegally, and they have not paid a single dime for it. So, in my opinion Netlist deserves every dime they are going for.

That being said?

The majority of the patent decisions made by the PTAB have gone against Netlist. Netlist has appealed those decisions to the CAFC. That makes Netlist the Appellant and their opponent (Micron, Samsung or Google) the Appellee. The Appellant is the party that is hoping that the PTAB decision will be reversed by the CAFC. The Appellee is the party that has already won at the PTAB level.

If you were to review most every CAFC decision in a patent fight? Unfortunately, more often than not, the CAFC rules with the Appellee and against the Appellant. Sometimes? Yes - the Appellant does win. But not often.

I think it is unreasonable to expect that every patent battle being waged at the CAFC level will be won by Netlist. Would I like to see Netlist win EVERY battle? Of course. And yes, I do expect some wins. Let's see what happens when the rulings start coming in.

The mood at the USPTO (and in Congress) seems to be changing. They are waking up to the fact that Big Business is stifling small business and just outright stealing their patents. So possibly, we may see the CAFC reign in the PTAB and start ruling for the Appellant. Who knows?

There's two BIG decisions I think Netlist MUST win. The first is the BOC case against Samsung in California. The other big one we MUST win is the '912 (Claim 16) patent fight. And I think we will win them in the end.

Good luck.

You wrote "chance of collecting some of that $445M"... Why wouldn't Netlist collect every penny plus interest were it to be "finished"?
Is this not the way thing work?
Thanks !

i would hope not, and sk should realize nlst tec made them number one so if they wanna stay there they gotta pay up. but yeah, getting time for that renewal.......... happy 249 back at ya, i'll celebrate at 420 after i have some dinner!!!

SK is going to start negotiations for our dear Netlist soon imho. Netlist will not go cheap though. Happy 249 !

Samsung delays $44 billion Texas chip fab — sources say completion halted because 'there are no customers'..............(can it be no one wants to do business with a thief no more, or is it that the thief cant reverse engineer the product properly? i think they are on strike 3 with getting their current project to work in compliance to nvda's needs. anyway, weren't they just number one a little while ago.....and now there crying no customers)

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/samsung-delays-usd44-billion-texas-chip-fab-sources-say-completion-halted-because-there-are-no-customers

sounds like the tec being used may be ours since sk is supplying the memory...Intel jumps to HBM4 with Jaguar Shores, 2nd Gen MRDIMMs with Diamond Rapids
Anton Shilov
Wed, July 2, 2025 at 1:22 PM EDT

https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/articles/intel-jumps-hbm4-jaguar-shores-172242909.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zdG9ja3R3aXRzLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABj4ntj1e7IBz09iFxIK5vTg6BdLZGSq9FVAei9Vo5aYdMPKwlAoeAdyjBJfe-5AJbk5DSAgbp4fw3fK0C7qTAS7dW573nP8OgV9w2V-5Ljhqf68rLvGagClZzegpnls3SwuR8aulxCemf_pynz31shxjOAr6NpdTKfHlykvqY30

Oh well! As someone always says on this board: There is always tomorrow.
Happy Independent Day tomorrow.
And one of these tomorrows, we will get some independence from this shitty stock price.

got the 2mil right at the end!!! enjoy your bbq's!!!

good luck to all of us!!!

Sure is. At this rate, I'm expecting it to fill sometime next week if not today.

could be 2milly plus???

just a thought, but i bet some one there has a round about idea. getting them to tell you is another story........

Netlist, Inc.
111 Academy Way, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92617

Phone: +1 (949) 435-0025
Fax: +1 (949) 435-0031
Email: info@netlist.com

i forgot to ask, is a gtc order?

Any guesses on when we break through that self-imposed 0.70 barrier?

totally absurd, just better hope CHUNK knows what hes do'n!!!

the selling is unreal someone is shorting it to death..... 1.1 m shorted since yesterday.....

milly plus is on for the long weekend, VIVA LA CHUNK!!!

$NLST due next weds, 7-9-25 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.801.0_2.pdf

Case # 00993 Current Status

• The BOC case now awaits the decision of Judge Wesely Hsu. On 06/27/2025, Judge Hsu produced an
order - gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.801.0_2.pdf

“The Court ORDERS Defendant and Plaintiff Netlist Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to file, by July 9, 2025, a status report
proposing how the Court should elicit testimony from the jurors in question. If needed, the Court will
continue or vacate the July 11, 2025, [evidentiary] hearing.”
In other words – the Judge wants to question the jurors to find out if they INTENTIONALLY LIED and if they
did, if was it an attempt to get on the jury to sway he vote.

• Should the judge decide that a new trial is justified? We will embark on trial #4!
• Should the judge decide that a new trial is not justified? He will deny the motion. That will set the stage
for Samsungs 2nd appeal of this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• There are no damage awards for this trial – this trial is specifically for establishing that Samsungs rights
under the JDLA agreement have ended.

lol!!! just realized the weekend starts at 1pm.... lets see if we get the 1 mil day........

No one knows anything when compared to what our CEO has ultimately in mind. Does he want a huge money infusion from a worthy company?? I say yes. 👏. Happy trading 😎