We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now


It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
Netlist Inc (QB)

Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST)

Closed March 01 04:00PM

Unlock more advanced trading tools

Join ADVFN today

Key stats and details

Current Price
1.55 Day's Range 1.63
1.02 52 Week Range 6.10
Market Cap
Previous Close
Last Trade
Last Trade Time
Financial Volume
$ 336,008
Average Volume (3m)
Shares Outstanding
Dividend Yield
PE Ratio
Earnings Per Share (EPS)
Net Profit

About Netlist Inc (QB)

Netlist provides high-performance solid state drives and modular memory solutions to enterprise customers in diverse industries. The Company's NVMe SSDs in various capacities and form factors and the line of custom and specialty memory products bring industry-leading performance to server and storag... Netlist provides high-performance solid state drives and modular memory solutions to enterprise customers in diverse industries. The Company's NVMe SSDs in various capacities and form factors and the line of custom and specialty memory products bring industry-leading performance to server and storage appliance customers and cloud service providers. Netlist licenses its portfolio of intellectual property including patents, in server memory, hybrid memory and storage class memory, to companies that implement Netlist's technology. To learn more, visit Show more

Semiconductor,related Device
Semiconductor,related Device
Wilmington, Delaware, USA
Netlist Inc (QB) is listed in the Semiconductor,related Device sector of the OTCMarkets with ticker NLST. The last closing price for Netlist (QB) was $1.63. Over the last year, Netlist (QB) shares have traded in a share price range of $ 1.02 to $ 6.10.

Netlist (QB) currently has 253,535,779 shares outstanding. The market capitalization of Netlist (QB) is $405.66 million. Netlist (QB) has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -12.16.

NLST Latest News

PeriodChangeChange %OpenHighLowAvg. Daily VolVWAP

Market Movers

View all
  • Most Active
  • % Gainers
  • % Losers
SCTLSocietal CDMO Inc
$ 1.065
ENVBEnveric Biosciences Inc
$ 1.44
SIDUSidus Space Inc
$ 9.03
IDEXIdeanomics Inc
$ 1.58
LVTXLAVA Therapeutics NV
$ 3.3131
JLJ Long Group Ltd
$ 1.9374
KAKineta Inc
$ 0.8168
LPSNLivePerson Inc
$ 1.2701
HCMAHCM Acquisition Corporation
$ 6.6559
$ 3.02
ENVBEnveric Biosciences Inc
$ 1.44
SOUNSoundHound AI Inc
$ 7.4101
GOEVCanoo Inc
$ 0.1041
AAPLApple Inc
$ 180.75
MARAMarathon Digital Holdings Inc
$ 25.875

NLST Discussion

View Posts
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 15 hours ago
calandra is becoming quite popular,
👍️ 1
Jetmek_03052 Jetmek_03052 15 hours ago
Case 8:20-cv-00993-MCS-ADS Document 426 Filed 02/28/24

Title Page

Attorneys for Plaintiff Netlist Inc.
NETLIST INC., a Delaware
LTD., a Korean corporation,

Case No. 8:20-cv-00993-MCS (ADS)

Date: March 18, 2024
Time: 2 p.m. PT
Location: Courtroom 7C
Judge: Hon. Mark C. Scars

Page 1

Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) respectfully submits this Notice in support of Netlist’s
Motion in Limine to Admit Testimony (Dkt. 417), to inform the Court that Judge
Gilstrap has granted Netlist’s Motion for Relief from the Protective Order to allow
Netlist to present the deposition testimony of Mr. Joseph Calandra for this Court’s
review for admission in this Action.

Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-
cv-293, Dkt. 679 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2024).

Judge Gilstrap held:
Netlist is not seeking to obtain extra discovery in this case to be used
in the CDCA Action, but rather Netlist is simply asking that it be
allowed to show Judge Scarsi deposition testimony that has already
taken place so that Judge Scarsi can determine whether or not such
testimony is relevant and admissible in the CDCA.

Exhibit A at 3. A true and correct copy of the testimony Netlist seeks to admit is
attached as Exhibit B (the exhibit includes full pages with the proposed testimony to
designate for playing before the jury highlighted).

As discussed in the Motion (Dkt. 417 at 5), Mr. Calandra was Samsung’s
30(b)(6) witness on various topics relating to Samsung policies regarding product
sales of NAND and DRAM, which cover the application of sales to customers with a
supply agreement such as the JDLA, including topic 55 (“facts and circumstances of
all sales or offers for sale of the Samsung Accused Products”), topic 51 (“Samsung’s
actual, proposed, contemplated, planned or prospective pricing policies, strategies,
plans, practices, or decisions for the Samsung Accused Products”), topic 50
(“distribution channels for the Samsung Accused Products”), and topic 59 (“expected,
planned, and forecasted profitability, revenues, and sales of the Samsung Accused
Products”). Dkt 417-14 (Ex. 13 (Netlist 30(b)(6) notice), 474-17 (Ex. 16 Samsung
email designating Mr. Calandra).

{Redacted lines = 3}

Page 2

{Redacted Lines = 9}

Samsung stated to the Ninth Circuit: “No ordinary businessperson in
Samsung’s position would agree to supply an unquantified amount of DRAM and
NAND to a single customer ‘on request at a competitive price.’” Netlist Inc. v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., LTD., 2022 WL 21243 72, at *34-35 (9th Cir. Jun. 6, 2022)
(Samsung’s Brief on Cross-Appeal). Samsung’s recently filed Memorandum of
Contentions of Fact and Law (Dkt. 402) has made clear it intends to attempt to present
the same argument to the jury. Under “Key Evidence in Opposition” Samsung lists
“Evidence of true supply agreements the parties have entered, which are materially
different in structure, language and substance from the JDLA.”

Dated: February 28, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

A. Matthew Ashley
Jason Sheasby
Michael Harbour

By: /s/ Jason Sheasby
Jason Sheasby

👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 19 hours ago
NLST and a new patent
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 19 hours ago
SK Hynix has ‘sold out’ of HBM DRAMs for 2024
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 19 hours ago
Yesterday 10:25 PM

$NLST And the other we're about to go to trial with (Micron) has problems within the firm representing them on our cases (Winston&Strawn), in a Copyright Infringement case unrelated to Netlist, not only against Winston&Strawn but also naming Michael Rueckheim as one of 4 defendants, Rueckheim has been the acting lead for Micron on our cases as long as I can remember, filing in and signing for Meilsheimer.
It's like an episode on the show Suits, where the firm the attorneys work for has to defend their own attorneys, and themselves, for plagiarizing a brief of all things...😂
The requests in the letter below were granted, and I'll be following the case for anything juicy.

👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 19 hours ago
Yesterday 9:41 PM

$NLST Another article on the same case.
[[["Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. wants a breach of contract lawsuit moved from state court, days after a Texas jury determined the electronics giant must pay Koninklijke Kpn $287 million for BREAKING A CONTRACT CONCERNING A PATENT LICENSING DEAL. Samsung sought to move the dispute to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s jurisdiction one business day after the Feb. 23 verdict in the Harrison County 71st District Court, according to a notice of related cases filed Tuesday."]]]
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 19 hours ago
Samsung Accused of Trying to Hide $287 Million Suit from Public
Yesterday 9:38 PM

$NLST We can only wonder who is not aware of Samsung's nefarious ways by now, from judges to jury to contract partners to consumers, all are in the loop. The need for secrecy is obvious.
[[["A U.S. District Court judge refused to seal Samsung Electronics Co.'s request to remove a BREACH OF CONTRACT case to a Texas federal court after a Dutch telecommunications company accused the Korean giant of trying to “conceal the very existence of this case from the public.”
Koninklijke KPN told a Texas federal judge on Feb. 27 that, “As far as KPN’s counsel has been informed by the Clerk of the Court, Samsung instructed that the entire case, not just its initiating document, should be concealed from the public.” This came after Samsung sought to move the case from state court ..."]]]
Subscription needed to read the rest.
👍️ 1
mikeg2 mikeg2 1 day ago
It’s a valid point , but it did not happen in the Samsung verdict last April. Those Texas jurors, a group of ordinary citizens were convinced overwhelmingly of Samsungs theft of Netlist tech. This in large part thanks to Netlist’s legal team who were able to explain in understandable terms the scope and breadth of Samsungs theft of Netlist patents . I wouldn’t worry too much about the jury, Jason Sheasby knows exactly how to present things in layman terms , regardless of the opposition legal team desperately trying to confuse .
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago

$NLST Considering the numerous key changes/developments since the chart version I posted last night... figure it's best to get the updated out asap. As the legend shows, anything new or changed since last update is highlighted yellow.
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago

$NLST Well we had a little glimpse of the Judge Gilstrap that I have been witnessing in the courtroom over the last several months with the latest document drops posted by Stokd.The discovery deposition being allowed to go to Judge Scarsi court is big in my eyes even though I think Nlst would win without it (IMO).I really like the fact that Judge Scarsi told Jason he needed to get permission from Judge Gilstrap before he brought the discovery to him,and Judge Gilstrap granted it!(just icing on the cake),and Micron being up to bat first is also big,because I think they are the most likely to settle at this point (IMO). It’s only a week (March 6 )till the Pre-trial Conference in the now Micron case instead of Samsung!Looking forward to next week and reporting.This will be better than the 25 minute hearing I drove 4 hours to witness this week,although Judge Gilstrap has already fulfilled the things he said he would rule on soon in that hearing,plus a few extra that I am excited about!
👍️ 3
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
believe it or not the exact opposite is happening through all the delay that we have recently experienced. read the court docs there clearing it up to make it more simplified. it just sounds messy because we are not privvy to how they resolve everything. the one thing you will garner through reading what has been posted earlier is that there dividing things up for them to be addressed in a more simplified manner in the court room thus not causing any confusion. scamsung and micrap are going to get their head handed to them. this isnt hype. the tactics they've pulled recently have pissed the judge off. everyone knows there guilty as sin and so do they, but they are out of options to pull. nlst with irell and m with sheasby know exactly how to handle this. we'll be more than ok !
👍️ 1
Hawkeye3 Hawkeye3 1 day ago
My biggest worry is that Micron and Samsung are trying to make the court cases so complicated that the jurys will be so confused and rule for the defendants, that is what they normaly do when they know they have slim chances of winning. Seen it many times before.
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
NLST Another sua sponte order from Gilstrap in the Micron #294 case for expedited briefing, shifting into overdrive—“The Court issues this Order sua sponte. Before the Court are Netlist’s Motion for Consolidation (2:22-CV-00293, Dkt. No. 607), Netlist’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Expert Reports (2:22-CV-00293, Dkt. No. 608), and Micron’s Motion to Compel Production of Expert Deposition Transcript from Lead Case (2:22-CV-00293, Dkt. No. 660) (collectively, the “Motions”). The responses to the Motions are due the day before the pre-trial conference. The Court finds that expedited briefing is warranted.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS sua sponte that the parties’ respective responses to the Motions, if any, must be filed no later than Friday, March 1, 2024.”
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
12:17 PM

$NLST I love this part.
"In the past few months, the parties have filed nearly sixty motions. It is apparent that many of these motions affect one case, but not the other. It is overwhelmingly apparent that consolidation of the above-captioned cases is not producing the efficiency gains that consolidation is designed to produce."

Judge Gilstrap appears slightly annoyed.
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
NLST Another Order 🔥 Micron to trial first — "The Court issues this order sua sponte. The Court previously consolidated the above- captioned cases (293 & 294). In the past few months, the parties have filed nearly sixty motions. It is apparent that many of these motions affect one case, but not the other. It is overwhelmingly apparent that consolidation of the above-captioned cases is not producing the efficiency gains that consolidation is designed to produce. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case. It is now clear that it would be beneficial if these cases were deconsolidated to follow their own separate schedules. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the District Clerk DECONSOLIDATE the Micron 294 from the Samsung 293. It is further
ORDERED that the Micron 294, is specially set for trial on April 22" --- "It is further ORDERED that the pretrial conference and trial dates for the Samsung case 293, are cancelled to be reset at a later date."
Link to full -
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
NLST "Having considered the Motion and the subsequent briefing, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED."
"According to Netlist, Samsung’s corporate representative, Joseph Calandra, provided testimony in this case that contradicts certain positions that Samsung has taken in the co-pending CDCA Action. (Dkt. No. 553 at 2.) Netlist desires to present the testimony from this case in the CDCA Action. However, Mr. Calandra’s testimony has been designated as confidential under the protective order in this case, preventing Netlist from presenting Mr. Calandra’s testimony in the CDCA Action in any manner. As a result, Netlist now seeks relief from the protective order in this case to present Mr. Calandra’s testimony to Hon. Mark C. Scarsi so that he may then determine whether such testimony is relevant and admissible in the CDCA Action."
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
$NLST Boom 🔥 Netlist's Motion for Relief from Protective Order is GRANTED — "it is ORDERED that Netlist may present the deposition testimony of Mr. Calandra for review by Judge Scarsi in the CDCA Action."
Link to full filing below--
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
Samsung Develops Industry-First 36GB HBM3E 12H DRAM
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
7:17 AM

$NLST If Samsung loses the previous contract with Netlist (2015-2020), it will be responsible for exaggerated damages of all rdimms and lrdimms with 912 technology together with those infamous microns.
You can see it from the pic, an average of 13m servers sold, practically all of them have 912 technology. Each server has a minimum of 4 dimms, the April case concerns all rdimms and lrdimms ddr4, the volumes will be gigantic. over 40 million potential units per year with integrated 912.
I'm telling you, Samsung risks more than a billion $ in damages and Micron should be very close too.

This case will be the biggest and most important of netlist without a doubt.

Here we are talking about tens of millions of dimms sold every single year, very large numbers.

Between 5 and 8 years of damages lol :) good luck guys
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
4:57 AM

$NLST The soon, in less than 4 weeks, coming BOC trial (with the jury judgement coming in the same week) could also have a big impact the European cases and damages awarded there. See the screenshot on point 8.2 of the concerned contract stokds post below. This states "woldwide" regarding licence. So if the jury further limits the time and scope when and for which products Samsung had a licence, this would also affect Europe (completely independent from PTAB). Best would if the jury declared the whole contract ambigous and null and conclude that Samsung never had a valid licence. I still think however, that judge Scarsi will "guide" the jury towards a judgements which is highly consistent (if not the same) as his first judgement, which is that Samsung materially breached the contract, that Netlist properly terminated the contract and thus Samsung lost its worldwide (!) licence with that termination.
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
3:49 AM

$NLST *Netlist Litigation Chart*
Adjusted some things to increase scale and declutter, also want to stay future focused as the past can be explained.
As much as the chart is for new investors, it is more so for us longs who have been on this journey, to help us follow and stay on track collectively through all the complexities and numerous parallel litigation.
I Removed:
-“race to finality” & CAFC affirmation—can be explained / should be a given.
-2021 SK Hynix case/settlement—awaiting 2025 renegotiation.
-Sheasby figure—a given he’s on / part of everything.
-case # from legend—obvious on chart.
-unnecessary designs/images
-PTAB IPR Oral Hearing box—only few left, easy to remind.
-BOC appeal case—remanded back to original BOC case/judge.
-“+ Injunction” in German cases—a given injunctions are in play in German court.
Only going with what is current—anything relevant or extra, such as what I referenced above, can be explained and discussed on the board or found through DD.
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 1 day ago
NLST Netlist Motion for Consolidation with respect to Micron was unsealed today—great 9pg read. Valid points for the short and long term. Wonder how Netlist's recent intent to transfer WD patents to ED plays into things… apparent there's quite a lot going on behind the scenes, strategy and maneuvering the ship through a fluid situation the best way possible. Certainly feels/seems things are coming to a point and will finally be dealt with and resolved, thereby moving onto the next part of the process.

"Netlist respectfully requests that the Court consolidate Micron Case 203 (MicronI) with Micron Case 294 (MicronII) for purposes of trial. Specifically, Netlist requests that the parties proceed to trial on April 22, 2024, on the two patents currently at issue in MicronII and one patent from each of the two families currently at issue in MicronI.(1) Doing so would allow for the efficient resolution of both cases between Netlist and Micron."
Read further—link below
Carthnel Carthnel 2 days ago
This stock is wayyy overdue for an exciting day ,)
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
Yesterday 10:46 PM

$NLST Since we’re on the topic of the JDLA & BOC case, some filings dropped last night. Particularly Netlist’s Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law(linked below)—outlining what they seek, why, and the approach—unlike Samsung’s fiction of nonsense based on alternate reality. And in the same BOC case a Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement (pictured below) stating—“Plaintiff Netlist Inc. and Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively the “Parties”) submit this joint status report regarding settlement. The Parties have had settlement discussions and have engaged the Hon. David Folsom (Ret.) as a mediator in connection with the parties’ related litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. As of the filing of this Joint Status Report, however, the Parties have not been able to negotiate a resolution of the action.” They're trying, and I wonder how much influence the 3 involved judges—Scarsi/Gilstrap/Folsom—may have and assert, given tied cases.
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
Yesterday 9:55 PM

$NLST I believe Bolliver is correct that JDLA does not cover 060/160 HBM & 054/918 DDR5—unsure on 506/339 being DDR4/older tech.
To understand what Netlist's JDLA license to Samsung covers, see Sec8.2 License To Samsung(top pic)where it states—"license under Netlist's Licensed Patents"—leading to JDLA Definition of 'Netlist's Licensed Patents'(mid pic).
"Netlist's Licensed Patents" means any and all patents owned or controlled by Netlist or any of its Subsidiaries and having an effective first filing date on or prior to the end of Capture Period."—leading to JDLA Definition of 'Capture Period'(btm pic).
"Capture Period" means a period of five (5) years beginning on the Effective Date, subject to Sections 10.1.4 and 10.2.4."—sections are regarding 'Change Of Control' which neither party experienced—inapplicable.
No patents were developed/invented in collaboration during the JDP, and parties retain their Background IPR, so if Samsung loses the license, they lose any/all Netlist IP.
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
Yesterday 5:42 PM

$NLST based on the email between Samsung and Netlist I posted earlier today, shows that none of the products that were associated with the $303 million dollar jury verdict were covered under the jdla anyway. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but certainly the hbm was not and I don't think the power management would be either. Those were the two biggest ones as far as award goes.

It was only existing patents.
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
thx, no problem on the board as long as i'm around. just got back from doin a bunch of this............
GPF for president !!! nlst baby !!! get some !!!
Jimmy Joe Jimmy Joe 2 days ago
100lbStriper, thanks you for keeping this board updated.
Saves a lot of time from going back and forth between stock twits and this.

All the best to you and yours.

Gilstrap, Payne, and Folsom want this thing done already IMO.
👍️ 2 💩 1 💰️ 2 🤡 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
👍️ 2 💰️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
1:34 PM

$NLST Another voluntary withdrawal of motions by Netlist yesterday in the same #293 case—NETLIST, INC.’S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DKTS. 347, 349, 352, 357, AND 365—which I think is a good thing in order to streamline the case and issues, noting at the end—"Netlist will continue to work with defendants to narrow the outstanding motions to be heard at the March 6, 2024 pre-trial conference."
"Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) hereby respectfully files this notice of withdrawal of the following motions set to be heard at the March 6, 2024 pre-trial conference:"
-Dkt. 347: Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct or Unclean Hands;
-Dkt. 349: Motion for Summary Judgment on Defense of Prosecution History Estoppel;
-Dkt. 352: Motion for Summary Judgment on Prosecution Laches Defense;
-Dkt. 357: Motion for Summary Judgment on Defense of Equitable Estoppel;
-Dkt. 365: Motion for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defense of Claim Preclusion.
👍️ 1 💚 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
1:25 PM

$NLST Part-3
I rest on the fact that there are 2 experienced and capable patent friendly ED-TX judges working this case and doing their best to make sure it is appeal proof, they don’t want it coming back… if anything judges want them to settle. If retired ED-TX judge Spec Mstr Folsom wants to let Samsung have even some/part of SK negotiation info, and Gilsrap adopts it, there must be a reason, whether it be for appeal, jury, fairness, post trial motions… and I trust Gilstrap and his process. Regardless what Samsung can use and how these pre-trial motions shake out, it is all about the trial, and I have confidence in Sheasby to convey what is needed to win, just like the Samsung #463 case/trial, where the results of numerous summary judgment motions were also split. Trust our legal team and let it play out is my mantra.
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
1:22 PM

$NLST Part-2
If you read the order—posted to the board yesterday & linked below—139—regarding SK negotiations—was recommended denied-in-part / granted-in-part by Spec Mstr, so we don’t know specifics to what part since R&R’s are still sealed.
Netlist wrote in their objection — “Judge Payne has considered and squarely rejected the same arguments advanced in a related matter, Micron I, No. 22-cv-203, including Samsung’s new argument that it would need the “negotiation documents” for its damages’ expert apportionment analysis.” — &— “Special Master ordered production of negotiation materials specifically about “valuation or apportionment of value by Netlist or SK hynix to the patents asserted against Samsung in this case.” However, none of the patents asserted here (the 912,417,608 patents) were at issue in Netlist’s previous litigations or other disputes with SK hynix.” — would seem inapplicable to that extent, and who knows what/if any impact… we’ll have to see.
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
1:19 PM

$NLST Was traveling yesterday, just catching up. Saw it was posted, I'll explain in few posts.
Gilstrap adopts Spc Mstr Recs, including on 4 motions Netlist objected—"Netlist filed objections to both the First and Second Report and Recommendations. Specifically, Netlist objected to the Special Master’s Recommendations concerning Dkts 193,225,224,139. The Court held a hearing on Feb 26, wherein Netlist was given an opportunity to be heard on each of its objections."
"After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Discovery Motions, the 1st and 2nd R&R by the Spec Mstr, having reviewed Netlist’s Objections, and considering the arguments presented, the Court finds that Netlist has failed to show that the Spec Mstr's R&R's were erroneous. Further, the Court agrees with the reasoning and analysis provided by the Spec Mstr in the First and Second R&R. Accordingly, the Court overrules Netlist’s Objections and adopts the Report and Recommendation in their entirety."
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 2 days ago
NLST Exhibit 93 from BOC case. Samsung will not be able to argue this away. No smoke and mirrors this is what happened between Netlist and Scammy in JDLA negotiations. The Jury get's to see all of this. If we also get Judge Gilstrap to allow any Discovery from TX to go to CA it's just icing on the cake
whole thread.
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 3 days ago
10:45 AM

NEW PATENT awarded

- Hybrid Memory System With Configurable Error Thresholds And Failure Analysis Capability -
US11,914,481 B2

a further development of the '120

What the gentlemen are up to is most likely directly related to the upcoming memory hybrid-x

so no paper that is relevant in the current cases

from patent paper ´481
The present disclosure relates generally to memory systems, and more particularly, to enhanced performance of memory systems such as hybrid memory systems having both volatile and non-volatile memory."

so when an HPC box is created, different types of memory will work together. The systems are harmonised so that it runs smoothly and without problems, and I see that as an advantage. Not just one single memory that can be used at will, a system is created. I think Netlist is building a small supercomputer.

whole thread....
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 3 days ago

$NLST Good morning Netlist longs. Mark this post. You will see that this is one other instance where Jason played Rope A Dope with Samsung and micron. He has consistently done it every time. There is no question that every one of these hearings and everything he says is strategically set up to guide the case to the outcome he desires. That is why Samsung has already lost one $300 million dollar jury award with interest collecting everyday. What happened yesterday is the beginning of the end of Samsung's license that they thought they had. We know where this is going. Samsung will have a license for the NVDIMM project and only the NVDIMM project. That's my opinion that's my read

whole thread.........
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 3 days ago
6:38 AM

$NLST I know at times it seems like Judge Gilstrap is against Nlst with some of his rulings. I have witnessed him many times and my feeling he is a very honest man.If everyone could sit in the courtroom and witness him at work you would think he is very fair to both sides!With saying that I still contend that he will eventually get justice for Nlst if the law will allow it,because he knows all the dirty things that have been done to Nlst! Yesterday Judge Gilstrap said he would rule on the Nlst objections soon at the end of the hearing. I didn’t think it would happen the same day.He also said he would rule on the motion for discovery in the previous trial to go to Scarsi court within a few days.So I expect that ruling any day now.Also Jason presented in detail to Judge Gilstrap that Samsung had taken two different positions in the courts on there defense.Judge Gilstrap was very attentive.Cordell tried to explain by putting up smoke and mirrors ! (IMO)
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 3 days ago
Tech News: SK Hynix Set to Mass Produce World's First HBM3E Memory in March
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 3 days ago
NLST the order for the reports and recommendations- 4 pages
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago

$NLST Well I thought we would get some answers today,(wrong.)I would not have driven for 4hours today if I knew what I would hear ,because there weren’t any decisions made.There are some possibilities coming soon if you read Bollivers post that could be good for Nlst if ruled in their favor.But it will be a few days before we know the rulings according to Judge Gilstrap. My focus now will be on the Mar.6 Pre-Trial Conference for the 293 case. I have been talking to Prime (Larry)and I think he will be there to help me cover this hearing .As I have said in the past between the two of us we can give a good account of what happens!Only 9 more days till it commences!
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago
$NLST Judge Gilstrap made no ruling today but in the next few days he will make ruling on whether discovery from Texas court can go into Judge Scarsi BOC case. This would be big because the Jury in California would hear that the Jury in TX awarded 303 million dollars. This is probably the biggest point that I heard. He has not allowed discovery in the past from other courts so if he does that's a bonus. If he doesn't then it is really no change.

Another thought would be if he does allow then Judge Scarsi could also allow discovery from BOC into TX. That would be a win win.

Samsung argued supply and licensed were limited to NVDimm and Jason argued they were not limited. ( Of course as you remember Jason also argued SEP then switched to Non-Sep. So I could see where Jason says OK Judge let them have it their way It's limited!) Jason said to the Judge Samsung is trying to have it both ways in 2 different courts and Judge Gilstrap was very attentive on this point! That's also Big IMO!

Rob said Judge Gilstrap showed no emotion either way.

Judge Gilstrap called lead lawyers into his chambers before it started is another point. Nobody knows what happened there.
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago
$NLST new notice just dropped. Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago

$NLST Rob said he just saw Cordel so it is on! No holds barred Battle Royale
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago

$NLST On the phone with Rob now and Judge Payne has entered the Parking lot. However I believe Judge Gilstrap is on Deck today.
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago

$NLST The entire semiconductor segment and all the companies involved in the AI business are showing excellent data and above all are worth a lot on the stock market. Only netlist seems to be anchored at very low levels and the reason is closely linked to the ridiculous situations of long and uncertain patent battles.

Having said that, it's obvious that netlist has the evidence and cash to beat these giants, sheasby has to hurry, netlist has been paying the legal team and court costs for 3 years and they need victories far superior to the samsung case and without doubts.

I want concrete facts, I want deals, I am with real deals, this company could become a billionaire in terms of revenues in a short time and above all it could reach tens of billions of dollars in market cap.
to all those who have doubts about it, do not really know how much these patents are worth and do not know how to listen or read the most relevant documents and information.

LONG as always
👍️ 1
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago
$NLST Usually you do win „everything“ if you have a lot of litigations. The good thing is: we do not need to win „everything“. Only a fraction is enough to make very nice gains from today‘s stock price level. And I am highly confident. At very least, we will win the West Texas case with 2 patents already confirm even by PTAB against Micron and at Delaware (patent 523!) against Google (millions of server!). Very most likely we will also win at least two patents of EDTX, case 293/294: those successor patents 417 and 215 from parent patent 314 for which PTAB issues confirmed its validity). We also have high chances to win 912 (after having already won several challenges at PtAB level). And even on DRAM and HBM patents we have still reasonable chances. BOC trial in 4 weeks! plus: high chances in Europe where there is no such big tech biased institution such as the PTAB.
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago
7:08 PM

$NLST Interesting, another head scratcher... why would Netlist withdraw their objections—#293 case NETLIST'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DR. HYUN LEE AND NETLIST’S MOTION TO CORRECT MATERIAL ERROR IN HEARING TRANSCRIPT—I'll continue to lean on the "we don't know what we don't know" mantra... not being privy to our legal team's strategy, while believing there is a good reason behind every action/inaction. And guess we'll learn more on Monday.
Link to filing --
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 4 days ago
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas
eyeownu eyeownu 5 days ago
👍️ 2
100lbStriper 100lbStriper 5 days ago
7:17 AM

$NLST Its going to be interesting tomorrow when we find out why Micron was excused from the Feb.26 hearing since some of the disputes from Judge Folsoms first R&R were directed at them. I will admit I am a little confused as to what is going on with this hearing.With me being in the court room tomorrow I think a lot of questions will be answered. I can’t wait!
👍️ 1

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

Support: 1-888-992-3836 |