gdog
5 days ago
Stokd
34m
$NLST Regarding the Micron TX # 294 case whose trial was won by Netlist for $445 million on patents 912 / 417 / 215:
Final Judgment was already issued by Gilstrap affirming the jury verdict. We're waiting on post trial motion rulings--Micron JMOLs & New Trial motions--before the case can be appealed to the CAFC by Micron.
Gilstrap just filed his ruling on Micron's Renewed JMOL --- 🔥DENIED🔥!
"Before the Court is the Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Willfulness of the Asserted Patents"
"the Court considered the totality of circumstances and concluded that enhancement of the compensatory award was not warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 284."
"Micron, nevertheless, moves for judgment as a matter of law of no willfulness on the grounds that no legally sufficient evidence supports the jury’s willfulness verdict."
"Accordingly, having elected not to enhance thdamages award, the Court finds that the Motion should be and is DENIED AS MOOT."
storage.courtlistener.com/r...
Bullish
Show More
2
38
Stokd
Yesterday 5:49 PM
$NLST Remember how filing of 087 suits played out, especially timing and who was first to file--Netlist!
"The “first-to-file” doctrine compels dismissal because exactly the same issues are currently being litigated in EDTX in an indisputably earlier-filed case. Shortly after 12amET May20,2025—the date of issuance of the 087 Patent— Netlist filed a complaint in TX alleging that Smsg infringes the 087 Patent. In response, Smsg filed this declaratory judgment action after Netlist’s first-filed case. The law is clear that this type of forum shopping by an accused infringer is improper."
"While the EDTX Complaint was filed just after 11pmCT May19,2025, locally in TX, this was just after 12amET May20,2025. As this is after midnight ET on the day of issuance, the 087 Patent had issued and Netlist had standing because “a patentee’s right to exclude, and therefore the remedy of a civil action for infringement, accrues upon issuance of the patent in the East TZ,” not the local Court’s time zone."
Bullish
Show More
3
100
Stokd
Yesterday 5:29 PM
$NLST Netlist strategy regarding the 087 HBM patent suits playing out.
Netlist filed - MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER - in both the Samsung & Micron recent DE suits for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the recently granted 087 Netlist patent.
Netlist already filed suits against Samsung & Micron in ED-TX for infringing the 087 patent. That's where Netlist seeks transfer if DE cases are not dismissed...which is the goal given the 087 TX cases.
"Defendant Netlist, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Eastern District of Texas the declaratory judgment complaint filed by Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The grounds for this Motion are set forth in defendant’s Opening Brief in support of its motion to dismiss filed contemporaneously herewith."
Read 2pg Intro in pic⬇️
Link
storage.courtlistener.com/r...
Bullish
Show More
4
110
Stokd
Jun 05, 2025 11:15 PM
$NLST May 23 Samsung filed a Citation of Supplemental Authority in #463 case CAFC appeal ($303 mill). Email to CAFC essentially citing a decision in another appeal that Samsung thinks is relevant and should carry “authority”—they argue and claim.
Citing a decision that remanded for a damages retrial due to abuse of discretion (details pic1). I followed that appeal and heard oral arguments—being it involved Netlist's damages expert Kennedy, and substance around damages models/comparables/reasoning.
The circumstances in that appeal were different with respect to Kennedy than how it played out in our case...was nuanced, complex, but different.
Thought to explain that the briefing process in the appeal concluded, it’s not a motion or brief, just an email in desperation…and has no effect or bearing on our appeal. Chose to wait for reply.
Netlist just replied similarly via email disputing the relevance or implications that Samsung claims…glad I waited for Netlist’s response/take.
Truth=pic2
Bullish
Show More
4
127
Stokd
Jun 03, 2025 3:04 AM
$NLST I presume the incoming BOC New Trial decision will look something like this image...shutdown with a quick and easy NO!
(image/post not meant politically, nor implies anything on the positions of the subjects — just repurposing the funny posturing) 😉
Bullish
3
88
Stokd
Jun 03, 2025 1:32 AM
$NLST Netlist Opposition to BOC New Trial—nonsense as suspected! lol
"Having lost a jury trial again in this case, Samsung resorts to a familiar tactic: accusing multiple jurors of failing to disclose prior litigation. This time, Smsg argues that a new trial is required because certain jurors did not identify during voir dire that, years ago, they were involved in bankruptcies or minor proceedings such as small claims actions or debt collections. After the last trial, as here, Smsg accused multiple jurors of lying during voir dire. Judge Scarsi granted the motion as to one of the four jurors who Smsg accused, finding that the juror failed to disclose more than a dozen lawsuits, including two breach of contract cases that were pending at the time of trial against an individual of Korean descent. Scarsi described those circumstances as presenting a “close” issue. While Netlist respectfully disagrees with Judge Scarsi’s decision, here the issue is not even “close.”"
storage.courtlistener.com/r...
Bullish
Show More
6
122
Stokd
Jun 02, 2025 9:18 PM
$NLST Yep, all variations of my name with identical avatar are imposters...obviously desperate!🤡
Back to business...Netlist filed their Answer to Samsung's DE Complaints (suits) for Decl Judg of Non-Infringement of 024 & 319 patents. Same patents that were recently instituted IPRs at PTAB petitioned by Samsung, and subsequently for which days ago Netlist filed for Director Review of the decisions to institute IPRs.
As expected and happy to see, Netlist filed Counterclaims for infringement of the 024 & 319 patents.
"Samsung continued to manufacture, use, sell, offer to sell, and import to the United States the Accused Instrumentalities after the JDLA was terminated."
"On information and belief, Samsung directly infringed and is currently infringing..."
"On information and belief, Samsung also indirectly infringes the ’024 Patent, as provided in 35USC§271(b), by inducing infringement by others, such as their customers and end users..."
319
storage.courtlistener.com/r...
024
storage.courtlistener.com/r...
Bullish
Show More
5
129
Stokd
May 30, 2025 3:03 PM
$NLST Netlist filed REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OF DECISION GRANTING INSTITUTION of 319 & 024 IPRs—Samsung DE cases for Decl Judg No Infringement in 2023(024)/2024(319).
New patent friendly PTAB leadership—Coke Stewart—has reversed unwarranted institutions recently under the new Fintiv/discretionary denial framework, considering aspects previously ignored by prior leadership.
024
ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/pub...
319
ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/pub...
"decision is inconsistent with important policy considerations directed to the efficient use of PTAB resources. Moving forward with trial would expend undue resources sifting through voluminous exhibits and case histories to adjudicate unclear and redundant grounds. The panel did not even decide whether four of the six grounds meet the threshold for institution, suggesting that the PTAB lacks the resources (or they are better expended elsewhere) to resolve the fact-intensive issues in dispute and that an ArticleIII court is the appropriate forum for adjudication."
Bullish
Show More
6
161
Stokd
May 24, 2025 6:37 PM
$NLST Lastly, I've previously posted about our new appeal specialist Jeff Lamken/MoloLamken—on CAFC 339/918/054/060/160/# 463case/912—highlighting his resume and experience. With the 463 case & its patent CAFC appeals at the oral argument phase, time for reiteration we're in great hands...we'll catch him at orals.
Bio—scroll SCOTUS & CAFC cases.
mololamken.com/professional...
WE HAVE THE RIGHT GUY!
Not only a CAFC specialist—"nationally recognized appellate practitioner"—& SCOTUS—"has argued 29 cases before the US Supreme Court and briefed dozens more "—but headed the firm Samsung used on all PTAB IPRs—"headed Baker Botts Supreme Court and Appellate Practice in Washington DC". And—"served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the US Dept of Justice, and was a partner in the Washington DC. litigation boutique Kellogg, Huber & Hansen. He clerked for the Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor of the US Supreme Court and the Honorable Alex Kozinski of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
Bullish
Show More
2
97
Stokd
May 24, 2025 5:07 PM
$NLST In addition to challenging PTAB reasoning on many aspects, Netlist addresses lack of reasoning/analysis on other claims & limitations.
"Board’s failure to provide independent analysis for numerous claims and limitations requires vacatur. Samsung insists the Board “cited to the relevant briefing.” But that is insufficient.
Netlist was not required to present “arguments” about those limitations. Patentees have “no obligation to raise any objection.” The Board must provide reasoned analysis that supports the patent’s invalidation. The defect is not that the Board’s reasoning could have been ‘more thorough.’ It is that the Board’s own reasoning was NON-EXISTENT. This Court “is powerless to affirm the” Board’s decision where the Board’s own “grounds are inadequate or improper.” And harmless error exists only where the agency’s error ‘clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached.’ There is no basis for deeming the fundamental errors here harmless."
Bullish
Show More
3
103
Stokd
May 24, 2025 4:37 PM
$NLST "Claim 1 of the 060 patent requires at least two groups of “array dies” and at least two “die interconnects”
"To find that invention in the prior art, the Board invoked “Kim’s memory chip C1” and “chip C2”— each depicted as a single die—as the “first” and “second group” of dies, and Kim’s “TSV1” and “TSV2” as the “first” and “second die interconnect.”"
"The Board, however, confronted a problem: Kim’s TSV1 and TSV2 are each connected to one memory die (C1 & C2). But the claim requires a “first group of array dies” with “multiple array dies” connected to the “first die interconnect.” So the Board announced that skilled artisans “‘would have been motivated to connect additional memory dies to Kim’s TSV1 & TSV2.’” In doing so, the BOARD IGNORED EVERY REASON KIM POINTS AWAY FROM THAT MODIFICATION. Kim does not merely show single dies with single TSVs in each embodiment. It teaches that dies “cannot share” connections, such as TSVs, because “unavoidable” “data collisions”would result."
Bullish
Show More
6
1
94
Stokd
May 24, 2025 3:44 PM
$NLST Re: Netlist CAFC 160/060 Reply. Remember Samsung claimed Netlist addressed the "wrong combination", and had some wondering if Netlist new counsel—CAFC specialist & previous head of firm Samsung used at PTAB to invalidate the patents—made such an obvious and critical error…to address the wrong combination in arguments against Samsung/PTAB. Well, he's got it covered...never trust Samsung's claims!
“Samsung’s assertion that Netlist addresses the “wrong combination,” likewise fails. According to Samsung, the Board started with another reference, Rajan, and determined skilled artisans would “implement” Rajan “using . . . Kim’s TSV[s]”. That rewrites the Board’s rationale.”
“The Board adopted Samsung’s contention that skilled artisans “ ‘would have been motivated to connect additional memory dies to Kim’s TSV1 and TSV2’”. The Board’s combination was based on Kim. Samsung cannot escape Kim’s teaching away and seek affirmance based on a Rajan-focused combination the Board never invoked.”
Bullish
Show More
6
102
Stokd
May 24, 2025 3:29 PM
$NLST Netlist filed their Reply in the CAFC appeal of 160 & 060 patents on May 21…that concludes the briefing process and we wait for the panel to absorb/digest and begin the Oral Argument scheduling process.
With that, all briefings are done in the CAFC appeals of the # 463 case and all its patents—339/918/054/160/060—and these “companion CAFC cases” are all in the Oral Argument phase of the process…after which comes the decision.
Bullish
2
96
Stokd
May 21, 2025 10:32 PM
$NLST Perhaps the reason for duplicative cases is they initially filed hours too soon—with 087 issued 20th—depending on cutoff time in district. Would explain why they filed cases 557 & 558 later that day and dismissed earlier 552 & 553.
Who knows, speculating and hypothesizing...what I do know is Samsung is gearing up for a fight on what they know is a KEY patent (pic🔥below), and I know Sheasby&team know what they're doing and are best in the game...won all our patent infringement trials.
I think they still filed before Samsung but makes little difference, nothing DE can do to force Gilstrap to transfer or dismiss, why would he...all the parties patent infringement litigation has been in his court.
If anything, Netlist will file for dismissal in DE given the TX action, which has a fair chance of being granted. IMO, litigation on the 087 HBM patent will be in TX w/Gilstrap. Prior transfer motions in numerous TX litigation were filed by Samsung/Micron but none ever granted.
Bullish
Show More
2
102
Stokd
May 21, 2025 2:55 PM
$NLST Regarding yesterdays scheduling change of a hearing in the BOC case post trial process (top pic below) ----- "The court on its own motion, continues the motion hearing from 5/30/2025 to 7/11/2025":
Keep in mind this is just for attorney fees that Samsung keeps arguing about through briefs, making a stand on that mountain...😂 for something so insignificant.
It has nothing to do with Samsung's New Trial motion that we're awaiting closure of, which has established briefing dates (bottom pic below) ----- Netlist Opposition June 2 / Samsung Reply June 16...followed by a decision.
I doubt a hearing will be needed and granted, though I'm sure Samsung will ask. But we'll see what happens...lot's of moving parts and dynamics, and a lot going on at once...it is quite something and interesting to say the least.
Bullish
Show More
5
86
Stokd
May 21, 2025 2:10 PM
$NLST 'Netlist Hits Samsung, Micron With New Patent Suits'
"Netlist has hit both Samsung and Micron with lawsuits in Texas federal court that accuse them of infringing a computer memory patent, cases that come after Netlist won multimillion-dollar verdicts in other intellectual property litigation against the companies."
law360.com/articles/2342665...
Bullish
Netlist Hits Samsung, Micron With New Patent Suits - Law360
https://www.law360.com
1
119
Stokd
May 21, 2025 2:01 PM
$NLST Some clarity on the recently filed suits and sequence of events:
--- Netlist filed suits in TX with Gilstrap against Samsung & Micron for infringing the 087 patent on May 19 — case #'s 552 & 553.
--- For some reason duplicate suits were filed at the same time for each — case #'s 557 & 558.
--- Netlist filed to dismiss case #'s 552 & 553 but not 557 & 558 — just removing duplicates.
--- The following day May 20 Samsung filed a suit in DE on the same 087 patent for declaratory judgment of no infringement — case # 626.
--- Netlist was FIRST to file in TX, so Samsung's late reaction move is a sad attempt to litigate the 087 in DE instead away from TX & Gilstrap...not going to work.
Now after the fact we can see some of the behind the scenes game/strategy and reasons of the timing and action taken by Sheasby/Netlist.
Not home at the moment to attach links to the cases in question, but some have been posted them.
Bullish
Show More
3
90
Stokd
May 20, 2025 12:04 PM
$NLST Few things I'd like to bring to your attention that are indeed positive:
1 --- Netlist filed suit against Samsung & Micron on the 087 patent the day it was issued—May 20,2025—wasting no time!
2 --- The 087 patent is part of/contributes to HBM technology...very important to Samsung/Micron and essential to the AI explosion currently under way.
Link to full doc against Samsung below--
storage.courtlistener.com/r...
Bullish
9
119
Stokd
May 20, 2025 11:41 AM
$NLST Now ask yourself this...why would Netlist file 2 new patent infringement suits that will increase litigation burn IF as some claim bankruptcy is in the cards...because it is not and just the usual bear narrative that never materializes.
Obviously Chuck/Sheasby know something, have deep insight, and privy to aspects of litigation and strategy that we are not. They know what they're doing and why they filed the two new suits now. Trust our legal team, the process...and let it play out! 🍻
Yes, Netlist will raise money if needed, but that is the last issue I have at the moment. Even with dilution, it is the better option for Netlist and investors that we not only see litigation through to completion, but pursue additional suits for patent infringement damages that hopefully add pressure leading to licensing deals, or more damages should Samsung/Micron not want to settle at any point.
Bullish
Show More
1
109
Stokd
May 20, 2025 11:17 AM
$NLST Guess what folks...🔥 as we have been reiterating, Netlist will continue to invent tech/patents that Samsung & Micron will undoubtedly infringe, leading to more patent infringement suits against them. Netlist keeping the pressure on and going after these thieves. 💪🏼
Yesterday Netlist filed a suit against Samsung and separately against Micron for infringing the 087 patent. They are in ED/TX with our man Judge Gilstrap! Only on Pacer as of now, should hit Courtlistener shortly.
I have a feeling this will not be the last, and happy to see Netlist pursue infringers for any/all patents, given the patent owner friendly culture now at the head of the USPTO/PTAB.
And with the new patent friendly PTAB Director we have a much better chance with patents that will be going through the IPR process. We have the 024 & 319 that were recently instituted, and the 087 will follow...and I hope more to come!
Bullish
Show More
8
1
138
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Ask ADVFN Intelligence (AI)
100lbStriper
56 minutes ago
Jetmek_03052
7 hours ago
Tommy321
15 hours ago
fung_derf
4 days ago
Hot Features
Premium
