Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) News

Razorz $NLST May I begin by sincerely thanking Stok'd and the many others for keeping us up to speed with with the shennagins that are going on by the legal fraternity and others with hidden agendas. I know that the judges have to tread carefully so as to give no grounds for appeal and this fact only draws out the whole process. That said lets not lose sight of the reality at hand. Micron are as guilty as sin for they do NOT have a liciense. Guilty! Samsung likewise do Not have any rights to Netlists IP for they too are trading illegally. Lastly Google signed a NDA which makes their use illegal and liable and this was exposed by court inspectors.The only trial at the moment is the American justice system and if that is lost we are all at the mercy of a corrupt plutocratic system.So if you believe in the laws of the land, as intended, go all in. It may take a little time however the returns are manifold. Good tidings to all and may patience be in the hand you're holding!

PLUS INTEREST, i might add........

Bowlsketball $NLST I guess we will be seeing many 52 week HIGH'S ahead. BOC trial coming up next month. We should win again since same evidence will be used as the previous two trials (that we won). Also, as STOKD has pointed out the race to finality at the CAFC is upon us. If CAFC affirms the $303 million judgement against Samsung, we will get paid (Samsung will not have any recourse at that point).

if this keeps up we can get fitty cent as a spokesperson..........maybe he'd buy some shares instead of giving them to suji lol!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent

TOMKiLA $NLST Insider sources reveal further concerns, with reports that “Samsung Electronics has reduced its high bandwidth memory (HBM) production target by over 10%, cutting it from 200,000 units per month to 170,000 by the end of 2025.” This conservative adjustment comes in response to production delays and “sluggish demand,” suggesting a more cautious investment approach from the company. The longer-than-expected quality testing for HBM3E has led to a downward revision of Samsung’s 2025 capacity target from 135-140 billion GB to around 120 billion GB.

120b gb, remember netlist won 16$ per one HBM with 16gb

ITS AMAZING!

Stokd $NLST Samsung is well aware of the dangers/remands that lie ahead for them... this just strengthens my conviction even more.

"As the Court is aware, the timing of appeals from district court litigations and Patent Office proceedings concerning the same patent claims can be very important. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Samsung’s proposed reciprocal treatment prevents any gamesmanship in the event there is a race to finality between rulings. This is not just a hypothetical concern, because the Patent Office addressed only one of several unpatentability grounds, leaving open the possibility of remand and a second appeal from the Patent Office.
In view of the circumstances and Netlist’s refusal of reciprocal treatment, Samsung requests that the Court either deny the requested extension or grant it subject to Samsung receiving an equal extension in any appeal of the district court litigation to ameliorate the potential prejudice."
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1811753/default.png

Stokd $NLST Started searching for any Samsung opposition to extensions in CAFC appeals for mentions/references to “race” implications.

Found a Dec 12 filing by Samsung in Netlist's 912 CAFC appeal. Netlist motioned for an extension to file opening brief, and Samsung opposed revealing concerns regarding losing a possible race to finality — CAFC did grant it to Netlist.

This will allow both Samsung & Micron 912 patent District Crt cases to catch up — both currently awaiting post trial rulings before filing CAFC appeal — then to be designated companion status to moot any race unless the CAFC remands.

Look what they tried — “Samsung offered not to oppose the requested extension of Netlist’s Principal Brief deadline and asked only that Netlist agree not to oppose a similar length extension for Samsung’s Principal Brief deadline in any appeal of the district court litigation.” — “However, Netlist refused to agree to that reciprocal treatment.” — good!

Now READ pic — "not just a hypothetical concern"

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1811450/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1811461/default.png

Stokd $NLST That reply nailed it!
The last basis/argument of Netlist’s appeal — “IV. For the remaining limitations, the Board simply accepted Petitioner's arguments without discussion. The APA and precedent require the Board to explain why it accepts even undisputed arguments.” — is exactly asking for remand, it’s the only way to resolve that issue, if the CAFC does not outright reverse invalidity based on other basis/arguments behind the appeal.

And if there is no reversal of invalidity on the 060 & 160 patents, remand is the next best thing, thereby Netlist can win the race to finality on the district court trial verdict and collect damages even if later the patents are affirmed invalid. Though, with a remand we also have a chance of validity by PTAB followed by rounds at the CAFC…still a good chance of ultimately being affirmed valid.

You will pleased to know that the PTAB has a 6 month timeframe on remands, much faster than the initial IPR.

PTAB procedure- chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sop_9_%20procedure_for_decisions_remanded_from_the_federal_circuit.pdf


https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1810037/default.png

Stokd $NLST Some progress/movement in the consolidated 060 & 160 CAFC appeals.

Yesterday Netlist filed their Opening Brief in their CAFC appeals of PTAB’s invalidity of 060 & 160 HBM patents.

It’s from Pacer so I can’t link the full doc, but I’ll post pics of the 2 page Summary Of Argument and the Table Of Contents so you can see what is involved and for some insight into the substance and basis of the appeal.
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1805587/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1805590/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1805596/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1805603/default.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/603036917

Key Influencer in the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market 2025: Rising Demand For High-Performance Computing (HPC) Fuels Growth In The High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market Driver
02-05-2025 03:04 PM CET | IT, New Media & Software
Press release from: The Business Research Company
High Bandwidth Memory HBM Market
High Bandwidth Memory HBM Market

What Is the Forecasted Market Size and Growth Rate for the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market?
The high bandwidth memory (HBM) market will grow from $2.36 billion in 2024 to $3 billion in 2025, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 27.3%. Growth drivers include advancements in graphics processing units (GPUs), the emergence of big data and analytics, the expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), increasing complexity of workloads, and rising demand for high-performance computing (HPC).

The High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) market will see exponential growth, reaching $7.78 billion by 2029, growing at a CAGR of 26.8%. This is driven by 5G rollout, edge computing, IoT, AI advancements, and VR/AR applications. Key trends include integration in autonomous vehicles, gaming, data centers, and wearable tech.

What Factors Are Propelling the Expansion of the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market?
The rising demand for high-performance computing (HPC) is expected to drive the growth of the high-bandwidth memory (HBM) market. HPC refers to advanced computing systems and technologies designed to tackle complex tasks at exceptional speeds and scales, surpassing traditional computing capabilities. HBM is utilized in HPC to facilitate faster and more efficient data access by vertically stacking memory dies on a single package, increasing bandwidth and reducing latency. For example, in January 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy announced a $1.8 million investment in six projects aimed at enhancing energy efficiency and productivity in manufacturing by leveraging HPC resources at U.S. National Laboratories. These initiatives focus on reducing carbon emissions in steelmaking, optimizing additive manufacturing, and improving battery manufacturing for electric vehicles. The growing demand for HPC is therefore contributing to the expansion of the high-bandwidth memory market.

Get Your Free Sample Now - Explore Exclusive Market Insights:
https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/sample.aspx?id=14114&type=smp

Which Businesses Are at the Forefront of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market Development?
Major companies operating in the high bandwidth memory (HBM) market are Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, Intel Corporation, International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated, SK Hynix Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Micron Technology Inc., Nvidia Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Western Digital Corporation, STMicroelectronics SA, Renesas Electronics Corporation, Powerchip Technology Corporation, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation, Macronix International Co., Ltd., Silicon Motion Technology Corporation, Transcend Information Inc., Integrated Silicon Solution Inc. (ISSI), Adata Technology Co. Ltd., Netlist Inc., Open Silicon Inc., Micronet Ltd., Winbond Electronics Corporation

What Are the Latest Innovations in the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market?
Companies in the high-bandwidth memory market are concentrating on developing innovative products, such as sustainable data center processors, to improve performance and energy efficiency. Sustainable data center processors aim to optimize energy efficiency and lessen environmental impact. For example, in January 2023, Intel Corporation, a US-based semiconductor company, launched the 4th Gen Xeon Scalable processors (Sapphire Rapids), Xeon CPU Max Series (Sapphire Rapids HBM), and the Data Center GPU Max Series (Ponte Vecchio). These products offer significant advancements in data center performance, efficiency, security, and capabilities in AI, cloud, network, edge, and supercomputing.

How Is the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market Segmented?
The high bandwidth memory (HBM) market covered in this report is segmented -

1) By Memory Type: Hybrid Memory Cube (HMC), High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
2) By Type: HBWPIM, HBM3, HBM2E, HBM2
3) By Application: Servers, Networking, Consumer, Automotive, Other Applications

Subsegments:
1) By Hybrid Memory Cube (HMC): HMC 1.0, HMC 2.0, HMC 3.0
2) By High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM): HBM1, HBM2, HBM2E, HBM3

Pre-Book Your Report Now For A Swift Delivery:
https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/high-bandwidth-memory-hbm-global-market-report

Where Is the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market Growth Most Prominent?
North America was the largest region in the high bandwidth memory (HBM) market in 2024. Asia-Pacific is expected to be the fastest-growing region in the forecast period. The regions covered in the high bandwidth memory (HBM) market report are Asia-Pacific, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, Middle East, Africa.

What Is Covered In The High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Global Market Report?

- Market Size Analysis: Analyze the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market size by key regions, countries, product types, and applications.
- Market Segmentation Analysis: Identify various subsegments within the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market for effective categorization.
- Key Player Focus: Focus on key players to define their market value, share, and competitive landscape.
- Growth Trends Analysis: Examine individual growth trends and prospects in the Market.
- Market Contribution: Evaluate contributions of different segments to the overall High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market growth.
- Growth Drivers: Detail key factors influencing market growth, including opportunities and drivers.
- Industry Challenges: Analyze challenges and risks affecting the High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) Market.
- Competitive Developments: Analyze competitive developments, such as expansions, agreements, and new product launches in the market.

Unlock Exclusive Market Insights - Purchase Your Research Report Now!
https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/purchaseoptions.aspx?id=14114

Connect with us on:
LinkedIn: https://in.linkedin.com/company/the-business-research-company,
Twitter: https://twitter.com/tbrc_info,
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC24_fI0rV8cR5DxlCpgmyFQ.

Contact Us
Europe: +44 207 1930 708,
Asia: +91 88972 63534,
Americas: +1 315 623 0293 or
Email: mailto:info@tbrc.info

Learn More About The Business Research Company
With over 15,000+ reports from 27 industries covering 60+ geographies, The Business Research Company has built a reputation for offering comprehensive, data-rich research and insights. Our flagship product, the Global Market Model delivers comprehensive and updated forecasts to support informed decision-making.

This release was published on openPR.
Permanent link to this press release:

https://www.openpr.com/news/3851906/key-influencer-in-the-high-bandwidth-memory-hbm-market-2025
https://www.openpr.com/news/3851906/key-influencer-in-the-high-bandwidth-memory-hbm-market-2025

suji should just give us the money or pay the market pps, or go to sk and make a monster deal.

yup!!! 100%..

we win the first one, the rest follow. that first one is an important phycological booster more than you know!!!

viva la new sk deal!!! hope for the best...next march if i remember correctly?

just pay us and get this madness over!!!

Stokd $NLST Part-2
2 pics
1— is paragraph from article explaining/affirming why I claimed that a granted injunction can carry unforeseen circumstances unfavorable to Netlist in the race.

2— on relevance and that final judgment between district court and CAFC differ...race to finality refers to CAFC.

“Furthermore, as the Federal Circuit noted this year in Packet v. NetScout, even if a finding of infringement and no invalidity is affirmed, if any part of the decision is remanded to the lower court, then the decision is not final and can be affected by collateral estoppel of a co-pending decision.
This leaves certain judgments in the district courts at risk of being foreclosed by a later affirmed board decision finding unpatentability, or board decisions of unpatentability failing to take effect before a final damages judgment in a parallel district court case. Although parties cannot control whether a panel will remand, this should be part of the calculus when considering which issues to appeal.”

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1801952/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1801957/default.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/603010451

Hard to say. Probably the funding but hard to say.

Stokd $NLST Part-1
A short article on the race to finality and how the law and its application evolved...doesn’t cover everything on the subject with all its nuances and factors, but a worthy read.

Keep in mind, usually the race has to do with getting to CAFC affirmation—called “final judgment” and not to be confused with a district court post trial final judgment—before a parallel proceeding concludes and prior to filing its appeal.

Contrary to our situation, where we have been able to eliminate any race up to this point because the parallel district court and PTAB proceedings were on somewhat of the same timeline towards CAFC and then designated companion appeals.

Our scenario of a race is about which gets to CAFC finality/affirmation first and whether there are any remands on the other/parallel proceeding.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.akingump.com/a/web/afgv4R3tPbRjXiXtMw85Kg/law360-racing-patents-to-the-fed-circ-collateral-estoppel-lessons.pdf

What will come first? the CAFC decisions or another $15 million registration to sell more shares???

That's always been the case. CAFC decisions will either make or break NLST.

its MHO CAFC will end alot of the uncertianty

What is the incentive for SK to renegotiate with Netlist when the contract is up for renewal? Just because it's the right/ethical thing to do? You know they've observed years of Samsung and Micron paying nothing. And they also must realize it's pretty much their contract with Netlist that has kept Netlist afloat. This is one of my biggest concerns. What if SK says, 'screw it, we're taking a page from the other infringers book and won't renew at all'. They would assume (probably correctly), that Netlist would eventually go bankrupt. Netlist could not afford adding another infringement suit to the mix, and would have no active partners paying them royalties. As shareholders we better hope that the SK-Netlist relationship is in real good shape, and when renewal comes we continue to give them a good deal, because without them, Netlist goes belly up, along with our investment.

TOMKiLA
8:30 AM

$NLST the interesting thing is the mix of events in the next 12/18 months between hearing cafc, patent value, ongoing/future trials and the sk hynix situation.
Does micron really want to tempt fate rather than sit down at the table and find a fair deal for both?

200m cash + billion dollar resale and partnership doesn't sound bad as ideal. The 912 alone risks 450m in damages without considering the lrdimm case already lost from the start + future ddr5 and hbm.

If netlist were to find a deal like that with micron + a $100m deal with sk + resale etc etc, everything would focus on samsung and google. less precessional costs, more revenues, profits and financial stability. it's obvious that I hope to see micron pay billion dollar damages but it all depends on timing and cafc appeal!
Bullish

lol!!! why do we need a court filing saying we could be sitting in front of 3 different judges, or more than likely one of the 3. remember, common sense doesnt apply......... are they alerting us this can turn into a bigger circus than it already is!!!!

the pps is right!!!!! do you want whats behind door number 1...........or would you like to take a chance on door number 2!!!

i've never been this bored with a stock in my life, never longer than 6 months, in out......up down, gone next........

Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (1:22-cv-00136)
District Court, W.D. Texas

98

Feb 5, 2025

Main Doc­ument

Order Reassigning Case https://charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_602985430.jpg

how things work out after we get paid is another story. whose to say they dont continue to infringe and we end up in court again. unless of course scamsong negotiates a license. dont worry about not being well versed in patent law unless you intend to make a career out of it. what little i know or even think i know constantly seems to change. just remember this, and i'm not being sarcastic. common sense does not apply in the situation we are in.

But, Samsung will continue to pay netlist for using their tech, right?
Sorry, not well-versed in patent law..

NLST ....Netlist is expected to be releasing its earnings data on Tuesday, February 11th.
Analysts expect Netlist to post earnings of ($0.03) per share and revenue of $30.00 million for the quarter.

Shares of NLST stock opened at $0.71 on Tuesday.
Netlist has a fifty-two week low of $0.65
and a fifty-two week high of $2.97.
The business's 50 day moving average price is $0.86
and its 200-day moving average price is $1.07.

https://stkt.co/LxYvscJI

i get, they owe 118mill for past and future in that case, then the individual patent which is valid gets 12mil past and future. thats why no injunction. the patents legit and we get paid whenever they get around to it, or feel like it.....

rotflol yes both are a waste of money ... BUTTTTT ONE OF THESE DAY'S

The first paragraph of that article does not makes sense to me. It appears to say 'it covers past and future infringements', then it says it doesnt. 

Feb. 3, 2025, Netlist's $12 Million Award Sinks Bid to Block Samsung's Sales
Christopher Yasiejko
Senior correspondent
Email Christopher Yasiejko
Tweet Christopher Yasiejko
Samsung Electronics Co. can keep selling certain computer-memory products because part of a Texas federal jury’s $118 million verdict tied to one Netlist Inc. patent covers both past and future infringement, a US district judge ruled.

While Netlist “may have requested a running royalty, its request is irrelevant—the jury found that a lump sum award” of $12 million “adequately compensates” the company, Judge Rodney Gilstrap wrote in an opinion issued Jan. 31 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He denied Netlist’s motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequent permanent injunction upon the resolution of all ...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/netlists-12-million-award-sinks-bid-to-block-samsungs-sales

Plaintiff’s Request for Injunction Denied Where Lump Sum Awarded
February 3, 2025EDTEXWEBLOG, EDTX IP, Injunctive Relief, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, Marshall, TEXIPLAWBLOG
Follow by EmailFacebookX (Twitter)LinkedIn
Judge Gilstrap denied prevailing plaintiff Netlist's request for an injunction as to defendant Samsung's patents which were found to infringe its patents, holding that a lump sum award eliminated the irreparable harm factor necessary for injunctive relief.

https://edtexweblog.com/plaintiffs-request-for-injunction-denied-where-lump-sum-awarded/

Stokd $NLST Netlist litigation is indeed being closely followed and reported on…eyes on our story is good. Pictured below are few articles on the injunction ruling (both paywalls).

Few words on yesterday, I know it was a lot…point was to show how particular scenarios can present opportunities for Netlist to collect trial damages on patents that are ultimately affirmed invalid by CAFC.

The discussed complexities and fluid nature surrounding Netlist's current situation should convey that even if it seems we're losing/behind on a patent/case, with an appeal remand things can quickly turn to a win in the race to CAFC finality.

Like with many things pertaining to the situation and parallel litigation, whether a particular remand is good/bad depends on circumstances determined by among other things the race.

Each path with a particular CAFC patent and case/trial appeal carries its own implications and scenarios coupled with the overall big picture impact in regard to any settlement pressure.
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1763032/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1763034/default.png

i know exactly what you mean. when i broil burgers i use 95%+ lean, but i do know how to season and how long to cook them. i also dont enjoy a messy burger so i cut out the grease..

lol!!! the connection at the moment is that they both suck!!!

no your right and thats what it taste like no fat at all...

Did I miss a post explaining the Bison-Netlist connection?

I mean other than as a shareholder, I feel like I'm being slaughtered.

😂😋😂

i would think fat content would have something to do with it. the bison is suppose to be leaner so you wouldnt get that great marbleization that you you do with a prime cut of cow, just my opinion.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says no to Samsung HBM failing tests https://semiwiki.com/forum/index.php?threads/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huang-says-no-to-samsung-hbm-failing-tests.22004/

I mean it wasn't bad but imho it wasn't as good as regular ole Beef..... and if you compare price it was ridiclous.....

wow, i'm actually surprised!!! would of thought it would be at least good for that price.

so I had the Bison Tomhawks yersterday, IMHO it tastes like a very bland Tbone staek, My wife had a Tbone and half way thru the meal I wanted to switch with her lol MHO no where worth the price, had to try and see but 2#'s ended up costing $128.00 with shipping on dry Ice.

NLST Part-7
Lastly, for whatever patents we get CAFC affirmation or reversal, they would simply await for their respective stayed case/trial appeal to conclude — if circumstances result in a stay for 463 case appeal.

Netlist is only disadvantaged with a stay if a PTAB patent appeal is affirmed invalid but could’ve concluded after the case/trial appeal if it wasn't stayed.

To better comprehend the multipart post, let's identify the players/aspects involved that I’m speaking on...the moving parts:

— CAFC appeal of PTAB invalidity decision...by Netlist

— CAFC appeal of PTAB validity decision...by Samsung/Micron

— CAFC appeal of District Court (Gilstrap) infringement case / trial...by Samsung/Micron

— CAFC affirms / reverses / remands

In any scenario, Netlist either wins some/all races to finality or ties/no race, unless something happens with a case/trial verdict appeal to cause remand while no remand on a PTAB invalidity appeal. I believe we're good...favored!

NLST Part-6
Now, to that end and with that said, it's why Samsung is now in a conundrum of sorts…they want to use BOC retrial decision—with case/license issue still unresolved—to delay 463 case CAFC appeal ($303mil trial win) pending BOC trial Scarsi judgment, because they fear/know Netlist has enough basis in their PTAB invalidity appeals to at least warrant remand by CAFC, which would give Netlist a win/lead in the race to CAFC finality with the 463 case appeal.

But being CAFC appeals of cases and patents are designated as companions, Samsung can’t just change tactics between appeals nor separate them with one being stayed without the others. They had to motion for CAFC to stay the case appeal while allowing PTAB patent appeals to proceed by de-designating companion case status, attempting to prevent Netlist in getting any advantage in the race…which under current circumstances would favor Netlist if Samsung continues with delays.

Can’t see CAFC going for it, should be all or none!

NLST Part-5
Any remand and we have a race. Hence it’s key there are no remands on CAFC trial verdict appeals, yet favorable if there are remands on PTAB invalidity appeals if CAFC doesn't just reverse invalidity. Preferable if no remands on PTAB valid patents, though odds are in our favor with trial appeals, so only an issue on PTAB invalidated patents.

When it comes to remand on a particular patent, and I would presume even when companion case status, then the Dist Crt case and other involved patents would not be held up for any one patent remand. Essentially, companion status lasts through oral argument, once CAFC renders decisions on patents/cases, based on individual outcomes they proceed on their own if remanded.

Clearly, how things play out and eventually conclude are convoluted enough, the complex and multidimensional nature of Netlist's litigation with many unknowns is hard to speculate on. There are reasons for everything whether understood or mysterious…it's a deep game.

NLST Part-4
That brings me to the injunction that was just denied by Gilstrap. He knows what may cause remand by CAFC, and this injunction motion is exactly that. By denying it now he avoids a situation of CAFC remand of the whole case/trial due to a grant of injunction by Gilstrap and abuse of his discretion.

Injunctions a really hard to attain and even harder to stick on appeal, the CAFC will often remand on such issues/aspects.

No remands on trial verdicts…but with remands on PTAB patent invalidity…is a win for Netlist in the race to finality, which becomes a race only if there is a remand. No remands in a trial/case and its patents means there is no race and we hope to win on the merits.

Keep in mind that the judge wants to protect his case judgment and trial verdict, and if that is a trial win for Netlist, the judge then essentially acts to protect Netlist's winning judgment/trial/damages. When Gilstrap denies something, in doing so he is protecting against remand on appeal.

NLST Part-3
Here’s the thing — which also addresses concerns of remand which would kick it back to PTAB for reconsideration based on CAFC instructions, instead of reversal — if there is a remand then THERE IS AGAIN A RACE, and if remand is on a CAFC appeal by Netlist of a PTAB invalidated patent—something many express they don’t want due to delay—it actually helps Netlist win the race to finality when a trial verdict is affirmed by CAFC first, so damages will be paid regardless if that patent is later deemed invalid by CAFC.

Same applies to trial verdict appeals by infringers, where if CAFC remands for any reason, while a PTAB appeal is not remanded and patent is affirmed invalid by CAFC, the damages from trial on that patent are cancelled.

With more than one patent to each infringement trial it makes for a dynamic and multidimensional situation that will unfold in a certain way / sequence, with many chances for Netlist to succeed on some patents and most if not all trial verdicts.

NLST Part-2
With the “race to finality” — which is a race to CAFC affirmation — if the District Court Gilstrap case/trial appeal receives CAFC affirmation before the PTAB patent appeal concludes, the trial damages are to be paid by the infringer, even if eventually/later the PTAB decision of invalidity is affirmed by the CAFC, rendering that patent invalid and to be cancelled by USPTO.

And on the other side, if the PTAB patent appeal is affirmed invalidity before the Dist Crt Gilstrap trial appeal concludes, it cancels the damages on that patent.

If the trial and patent appeals are on the same schedule and heard oral argument together, concluding around the same time—as intended by CAFC with companion case designations—and there is no remand in either….then there are no race implication.

If there is a remand—on PTAB or Gilstrap—it means CAFC did not affirm, and there is no finality even if other aspects are affirmed, till everything including issues on remand are affirmed by CAFC.

Stokd $NLST Part-1 of 5
You've read my past posts discussing the “race to finality” concept at play in patent litigation between PTAB and District Crt proceedings running in parallel — which I contended was for the most part moot given how appeals unfolded with CAFC giving companion case designation so they can brief/hear and adjudicate the District Crt Gilstrap trial and PTAB IPR decisions together…rendering any race nonexistent.

I don’t want to dive too deep at this moment because it’s too much to unpack/explain in a few posts — even this 5 part post would benefit from a video or walk through — but the ways in which things can play out are many and have levels/degrees making it extremely complex and impossible to predict with respect to how everything may conclude.

Furthermore, on the same topic and in a similar manner, an injunction by Gilstrap could have added an aspect that can actually become a problem and something that works against Netlist causing them to lose the race to finality.