Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) News

NLST we have a new patent application. It's the 557.........
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/netlist-inc

The catalyst for DBMM share price to rise is the same as it has always been. The winning of IP patents AND the actual receiving of awarded funds. It is great that we are winning jury awards, but everyone can plainly see that they mean bupkus without actually winning the IP battles and receiving the money.

It's the same as it has always been - for years. The CAFC has to bat down those stupid PTAB IPR decisions. That's what will drive up the share price.

What might be a catalyst for it to do so?

i'll say yup.....and thats only based on because i couldnt buy any low .70's!!!

I guess I just have to ask, does NLST go back over a $1 anytime soon?

Really appreciate your time and effort for this forum. Best to you and your family in the new year 😎

Yes. The judge requested status reports from the litigants every 90 days (I believe).

This is just to remind the board that two out of the three patents are completely cleared as to their legitimacy. The third is waiting for the appeal to take place.

This is all known, correct?

Case 1:22-cv-00136-DII Document 97 Filed 01/01/25

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1162388/gov.uscourts.txwd.1162388.97.0.pdf

Status Report - Stayed case # 00136

Status of Patents in case:

Patent # 035 - Some claims confirmed valid

1. On June 20, 2023, the Board issued its Final Written Decision affirming validity
of claims 2, 6, and 22, and finding claims 1, 10-13, and 21 invalid.
2. On July 20, 2023, Defendants filed a request for rehearing and on August 16,
2023, the Board granted the request and found claim 22 invalid. Following the
rehearing, the validity of claims 2 and 6 was confirmed, and claims 1, 10-13, 21,
and 22 were held invalid.


Patent # 608 - No challenged claims unpatentable

A. DEFENDANTS’ (Micron FIRST IPR (PTAB CASE NO. IPR2022-00237) IPR Request Denied

1. On December 23, 2021, Defendants (Micron) filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review

2. On July 19, 2022, the Board denied the Petition, and no trial was instituted.

3. On August 12, 2022, the Defendants filed a request for rehearing and on
September 16, 2022, the Board denied the request.

B. SAMSUNG’S IPR (PTAB CASE NO. IPR2023-00847) (INSTITUTED)

1. On April 27, 2023, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a Petition for Inter Partes
Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608.
2. On December 12, 2023, the Board granted the Petition and trial was instituted.
3. On September 5, 2024, the Board heard oral argument.
4 . On December 10, 2024, the Board issued a Final Written Decision determining no
challenged claims unpatentable.

C. DEFENDANTS’ (Micron) SECOND IPR (PTAB CASE NO. IPR2024-00370)
(INSTITUTION DENIED)

1. On January 10, 2024, Defendants filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
Patent No. 10,268,608. The IPR is substantially similar to Samsung’s IPR2023
00847.
2. On January 10, 2024, Defendants also filed a Motion for Joinder to Samsung’s
IPR2023-00847.
3. On July 23, 2024, the Board denied Defendants’ IPR Petition and Motion for
Joinder to Samsung’s IPR2023-00847.
4. On August 21, 2024, Defendants filed a Request for Director Review of the
Board’s decision, which was denied on October 8, 2024.

Patent # 314 - PTAB gave Final Written Decisions - Micron appealed decisions - Appeal Pending

III. U.S. PATENT NO. 10,489,314 (PTAB CASE NOS. IPR2022-00744 AND IPR2022
00745) (FINAL WRITTEN DECISIONS ISSUED – APPEAL PENDING)

1. On March 30, 2022, Defendants filed two Petitions for Inter Partes Review of
U.S. Patent No. 10,489,314.
2. On November 1, 2022, the Board granted the Petitions and trial was instituted.
3. On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff submitted its Patent Owner’s Response.
4. On May 5, 2023, Defendants submitted their Reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
5. On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff submitted its Sur-Reply to Defendants Reply to Patent
Owner’s Response.
6. On August 15, 2023, Oral Argument for the proceedings was held.
7. On October 30, 2023, the Board issued two Final Written Decisions determining
no challenged claims unpatentable in either of the IPR proceedings.
8. The Federal Circuit docketed Micron’s appeal in consolidated CAFC Case Nos.
24-1312 (Lead) and 24-1313.
9. Briefing is complete, and the appeal awaits oral argument.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL......... enjoy life its too short to waste....

Happy New Year to all in NLSTville.
Hopefully 2025 will be better for all of us here.

I think you're right gdog "the worm will turn" at some point in time in the future. I just hope all of us old codgers are not worm food when it does happen. lol I'm still planning on buying more as funds become available. Here's to a happy, healthy, blessed, and prosperous New Year to all Netlist longs.

Happy new yr to all NLSTERS remember the worm will turn "one of these days"

Some of the very same thoughts and I'm only 70 and down 43% lol Happy New Year to all and be safe out there! Amateur night

Talk about being Bipolar.

Am I going to regret not buying some shares down here at .77 and then to say how smart I was to do so when the pps goes back over a $1.
Or should I look and see that I am already down 75% and every share I have bought, thinking it was at the bottom, are in the red!!!
So, as I turn 75 tomorrow, lets hope that I will regret it in my old age!!!

Stokd $NLST Speaking of the TX/Gilstrap case, the $118 million trial win, parties just filed their JMOLs (sealed), and there it is....Sheasby wants a new trial on "Damages in the Form of a Lump Sum to the Extent Samsung Claims it Constitutes a License For Future Use". Let's go...🔥💪🏼

Gilstrap issued final judgment very fast in this case, perhaps he moves as fast on this. Verdict was Nov 22nd and final judgment Dec 2nd...lol, that is lightning speed! JMOLs are the last step before CAFC appeal, unless we get the retrial sought. Keeping an eye on some serious activity in this case, with the injunction motion pending as well.

Netlist — Combined Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial on the Jury's Award of Damages in the Form of a Lump Sum to the Extent Samsung Claims it Constitutes a License For Future Use, and Contingent Rule 59(e) Motion to Amend Judgment

Samsung — Samsung's 50(B) Motion for Judgment As A Matter Of Law
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1098075/default.png

Stokd $NLST Shifting focus away from Scarsi/O’Melveny subject, enough of that drama ;)....we’re confident how it will play out given the history of 2 prior trials and JMOL ruling.

Reality is Scarsi has supported Netlist’s position through 2 trials, denying Samsung JMOLs which seek to upend the jury verdict and Scarsi judgments for Netlist.

Does not mean I’m taking my eyes off Samsung and any attempts of subterfuge, as well as following the juror 16 situation and how jury selection will go in the 3rd trial.

I'm sure Netlist's legal team will be paying very close attention to any aspects Samsung was able to game in the past, and hopefully even more stringent watch for anything new.

Jumping to Gilstrap/TX case with pending injunction motion, update on where things stand. Left off with Samsung's response to injunction motion filed Dec18 and unsure if more allowed.

Well, Dec26 Netlist did file a reply, so 7days for Samsung sur-reply, then briefing done...we'll see if Gilstrap sets a new hearing!
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1096917/default.png

If shorts are coving we should see a bump in price ^ tomorrow

lol

at least nlst is currently still warmer than the temperature in my house!!!

Market down another 600pts same as friday lots of tax selling...

i only agree on the number 1 spot, but its for all my years....... one of these days..........

Well, at least NLST makes it to the top spot of my list.
It is the number 1 worst stock of the year on my list!!!

lol!!! but seriously, do we agree this is the devils sandbox?

and to metaphorically say we're entangled with mr. and mrs. reeper.......... gonna get a little humid today in the 70's.......

The contract matter will be decided at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the patent infringement matters will be decided at the CAFC. All the stuff before that is merely entertainment to kill time and fill the lawruhs wallets.

So go back to bed and set your alarm clock for when these cases-in-chief hit the appellate courts. That is where cases of this complexity are decided. All the handwaving and posturing before the appellate level is just pre-season games. Or, if you prefer this metaphor, it is kabuki theater with at best a passing resemblance to the bases on which the cases will ultimately be decided.

Sleep well. You'll have a long slumber.

Stokd $NLST I think at the time of 1st BOC trial — which was well before any signs of the gamesmanship that may come in the BOC saga, and this case/trial was before any other infringement trials with Samsung — Netlist had no reason to suspect the type of manipulative tactics O'Melveny would try, who joined the case only a month before trial.

Furthermore, contrary to how it may seem, it would legitimately lead Netlist to believe that given Scarsi's association to O'Melveny and Yoder, that he would be even more prudent with avoiding any appearance of impropriety and bias...that he would be compelled to such impartiality that it would be an advantage for Netlist against the giant.

We did win 1st & 2nd trial—after appeal remand—both with full support from Scarsi. Yet the way post trial motions played out after 2nd trial—the time it took, what prompted it, and his decision—seemed to have a different tone, felt off coupled with other things coming to light. We'll see what happens, still bullish!


Farhas80
5:05 PM
@Stokd $NLST WOW i am wondering if Mr Hong and Shasby new about it and just ignored it???

Stokd $NLST Admittedly it's hard to exactly remember/place things after 3yrs, but reading transcript further, there's more.

Perhaps my recollection off or inattention then caused me to mishear—familiar in social circles vs not knowing him socially / and I distinctly recall "country club"—but Scarsi discloses his connection to O'Melveny/Yoder, and Samsung's jury consultant.

Also asks if any objections to which Netlist—pre Sheasby/Irell&Manella addition—declined.

Scarsi: "I wanted to raise one more issue before we start with the jurors. And I probably should have raised this earlier. But I formerly was at O'Melveny & Myers years ago" — "so I was partners with both Mr. Feinstein and Mr. Yoder at O'Melveny & Myers." — "I know I worked with Mr. Yoder on a case maybe 20 years ago" — "I don't know them socially, you know, and haven't kept up any correspondence or dialogue with them a social context since, you know -- I probably haven't spoken with them since before 2007 when I went from O'Melveny"

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1074319/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1074324/default.png

Stokd $NLST RE: prior post. Was going off my recollection of what was said and when 3yrs ago between Scarsi & Yoder at 1st BOC trial. Just checked, and there is a transcript, though the part about country club and being familiar in social circles is not included. I believe it was actually brief small talk before trial officially started.

What we have is Yoder's exchange with Scarsi about his Covid, for which he sought delay.

"YODER: Michael Yoder also on behalf of Samsung. And, Your Honor, just real quickly. I know there may be questions about my health. I'm glad to report I have no symptoms, and since my symptoms disappeared, I've had two PCR tests, both of which have been negative."

"COURT: I'm really happy to see you and happy to hear that you are okay. Did it go away quickly or --"

"YODER: You know, in hindsight it may have been a false positive, and my doctor put me on antibiotics which seemed to do the job. So he doesn't think at this point that I have COVID but don't know for sure."

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1074033/default.png

Stokd $NLST Part-2
Now come to find out Scarsi was a actually PARTNER at O'Melveny (pic1), and O'Melveny was a very late addition to the case by Samsung (pic2). Was a different firm (Bird Marella) till Scarsi ruled on Summary Judgment—which was the nail in the coffin—that Samsung breached and Netlist terminated the JDLA lawfully, with only damages left to be decided through trial. (pic3)

Understanding the implications and that they are royally screwed as the damages are inconsequential, with the important and key factor being Samsung breached and Netlist terminated the contract legally, Samsung quickly adds O'Melveny as the lead firm to represent them, and right away Yoder's shenanigans began.

Samsung knew exactly what they were doing with Scarsi being former partner at O'Melveny, it was a move to try and figure out someway to influence the judge in an attempt to turn circumstances around.

With all the BS they pulled since, and 2 won trials later...the coincidences and connections are suspect!

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/598138322

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1073835/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1073838/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1073840/default.png

Stokd $NLST Part-1
I knew I should have looked into the matter further after witnessing Scarsi & Yoder's exchange at the start of 1st BOC trial, where Yoder was purportedly very sick with Covid but showed up at trial all healed after Scarsi would not grant a last minute trial delay. (pic)

Their exchange was something along the lines of—
Scarsi: you made it to trial after all Mr Yoder, must have been a magical cure as you seem well.
Yoder: yes judge, very fortunate to have healed fast. I wouldn't have lied to you, as we used to be colleagues and see each other at the golf/country club at times.
Scarsi: yes, we run in same circles and well familiar with each other.

Not rare in the legal community, having worked at same firms or litigated against each other or circumstances where they socialized. But it's all starting to look conspicuous and suspect considering all the developments since and how things played out.

Unknown if Scarsi is biased/corrupt, but Samsung sure is trying to finagle things.

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1073864/default.png

Daylas
Dec 27, 2024 1:08 PM

$NLST The parallels between the 3 judges in CA are undeniable..

First Armstrong favors with NLST only to delay delay and delay again until she finally passes the case on to Seeborg.. Seeborg then says things like” that’s your argument? (“ are you an Idiot”… SS says no we have other ways) ……And so he stays the case with Google so another judge can interrupt justice…..So ….And finally we have Scarsi who favors NLST with a summary judgement.. and then NLST wins the jury trial to confirm his findings….yet he waits this long to decide to retry the case..

It’s obvious.. these so called judges are on the take or are being extorted .. considering the corruption with Samsungs leadership.. we can clearly see how it’s penetrated our justice system…

I thank God for the honorable Judge Rodney Gilstrap…

Happy New Year!

Stokd $NLST Lastly for the day, wanted to address the firm Samsung uses on BOC case.

O'Melveny&Myers is used by Samsung only on BOC, not any infringement cases. Not that the infringement case firm is any less nefarious, as we've seen, but their BOC O'Melveny is on another level and has been at the root of Samsung’s most nefarious manipulation.

I won't look for and dig up old filings that support/validate what I'm saying—basically a history lesson—but many remember and can attest to what we experienced and read.

-O'Melveny brought us attorney Yoder, who days before the 1st BOC trial claimed to have Covid with bad symptoms and wanted a delay, judge said no, Yoder appeared at trial healed.

-Same O'Melveny Yoder claimed to have a stroke days before the 2nd BOC trial, and wanted a long delay to find replacement, judge said no, granted a short extension.

-After 2nd BOC trial, O'Melveny uncovers "juror 16 bias" causing retrial.

We're supposed to believe any of it is legitimate, same firm behind it all!

Stokd $NLST With some time to digest and allow Scarsi's rulings to be absorbed, and after numerous posts/docs unpacking all the aspects of the BOC situation—where the substance and context lies and how to really understand what exactly is happening and why—let’s recap what it all really means.

Who's the true winner, who got specifically everything they wanted except a trial redo on same merits/facts/evidence (Netlist) — and who got nothing of what they sought except barely scathing by with a retrial that has even less chance of success (Samsung).

-Samsung sought to reopen discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing—DENIED /Netlist win!

-Samsung JMOL sought to undo the jury verdict and challenge the merits of the whole case & trial—DENIED /Netlist win!

-Samsung won a retrial, due only to juror bias that had nothing to do with the merits or evidence in the case/trial. Hence, the retrial will not be impacted, leading to presumption of another Netlist trial win—Netlist loss /simply a 4 month delay!

Stokd $NLST If curious (or forgot) how "bias of juror 16" was born, the most detailed sequence of events as told by Samsung...crafty work.

5pg doc
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.599.0.pdf

"Thereafter, Samsung started to uncover information suggesting that certain potential jurors may have made false statements to the Court during voir dire regarding their prior experience with litigation and/or contract disputes."

"Notably, Samsung confirmed that, with respect to one of those undisclosed litigations, the litigation was brought by a plaintiff of Korean descent against Juror No. 16 that not only involved a dispute over a contract, but was actually pending at the time of voir dire and trial in this matter."

"On June 21, 2024, Samsung discovered three additional cases involving Juror No. 16." — "That second case was brought by the same plaintiff of Korean descent referenced above in para. 5, and was also a contract dispute, this time where the Korean plaintiff sought over $70,000 in damages from Juror No. 16."

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1064619/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1064620/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1064621/default.png

Stokd $NLST This just filed by Samsung demonstrates how unhappy they are with the results of Scarsi's rulings....as I've been attempting to get across. 🍻
Rushing to file opposition the next day on all their denied motions. 😂
They know exactly how things are going to turn out once we go around the same trial and post trial ride...end up right here, but instead with final judgment and good riddance.
Anyways had a few... 🥃

"SEALED OPPOSITION RE" "Objection/Opposition (Motion related), 629 , Order on Motion for Hearing,,,, Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,,,, Order on Sealed Motion (Generic sealed motion type event),,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,, 640 filed by Defendant Samsung Electronics"
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1064416/default.png

Stokd $NLST On juror16, so it's clear what the issue is and what Smsng invoked to influence Scarsi. SMH

Not only that juror didn't raise hand to questions on past/current litigation & contract disputes. It's that she was sued by Koreans.

Scarsi order—pic1
"Samsung’s research after trial revealed that Juror 16 should have raised her hand to the questions concerning her involvement in contract disputes and litigation."—"Notably, at the time of voir dire, Juror 16 had been named personally as a defendant to two then-pending civil cases concerning a landlord-tenant contract dispute FILED BY A PERSON OF KOREAN DESCENT"

Samsng motion—pic2
"Netlist's counsel in opening and closing repeatedly painted Netlist as an American innovator and Samsung as a foreign company uninterested in complying with US law. And Netlist's counsel repeatedly reminded the jury that Samsung is a Korean company, for example suggesting Netlist had to "fly out to Korea and kiss the president o f Samsung's A$$"

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1063211/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1063229/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1063242/default.png

Stokd $NLST The other overlooked big win is denial of Samsung's JMOL, it's crucial and essentially supports Netlist's winning position and the whole case/trial.

30pgs of nonsense (few pictured)—"Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law is made on the grounds that no reasonable juror could have concluded that the parties intended Netlist’s construction of Section 6.2 of the Joint Development and License Agreement (“JDLA”) when they entered into the contract."

Scarsi ruled for Netlist on all aspects of Samsung's JMOL. Only thing that got in the way of finalizing the case is one juror compelling a retrial.

But the real substance and what matters is supported through Scarsi's ruling/denial. When retrial concludes in win, JMOL is already ruled or another will be denied, leaves only final judgment due.

Facts on our side, position affirmed by judge, trial road map to avoid mistakes and smooth trial, being assertive and more aware of Samsung's nefariousness...Netlist position is strong!

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1062653/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1062657/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1062659/default.png

I hear ya but the worm will turn NLST will have its day.

Samsung is NOT HAPPY with Scarsi's order! Sealed Motion filed late last night. Image courtesy of Stokd -

It certainly does seem like criminals get every break that can possibly be given, while those that try to obey the law get screwed.

Seems like the justice can just keeps getting kicked down the road !

Well, WTF! I am beginning to believe that NLST is going to bleed to death by a thousand paper cuts from Samsung. I guess NLST will provide me a nice long-term capital loss to write off against my LT capital gains from SOFI.

I'm just glad I canceled that 1000 shares buy I had sitting at .87. As if now I don't want to touch anymore NLST shares.

Stokd $NLST 🙏🏼To reiterate a point I made regarding one Scarsi ruling, not confident it's clear/understood. This alone is a big win, read—Netlist Opposition To Samsung Evidentiary Hearing & Discovery Related Thert—& 4pics below.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.605.0.pdf

Questions/concerns regarding Sheasby are misguided, the motion was denied. And it's actually a Matt Ashley matter, Sheasby wanted to use an exhibit at trial unaware of any issues, Scarsi addressed it at trial too.

He also just denied Samsung's claims of discovery violations and opening cross discovery in the Texas Gilstrap case as well—trial win / 912ptnt / $118 million—so Samsung can go digging for anything they can use/manipulate to further abuse the court/judge/system & both cases—SCARSI JUST DENIED IT!

All of Samsung's claims against Netlist's conduct through improperly admitted exhibits during trial to rehabilitate a witness and subsequent failure to produce "Internal Devon Park Email" are DENIED.

Scarsi's Order

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.640.0.pdf

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1061295/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1061300/default.png

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1061305/default.png

https://stocktwits.com/Stokd/message/598061197

By 100# Striper some times my mind wonders sorry

I can see it now How I beat the Casinos at they own game
By a 100# stripper

lol!!! i'll send you an autographed copy of my book once i write it!!!

with each sentence you post I become more intrigued

take my word for it cuz if i was to tell you about it. you'd only need to go and try it to see and understand.

i hope they do grant the injunction and stop these bastards from selling our product in the states.

I know you know what your talking about but I don't hve a clue lol