Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) Noticias

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

Only one work for this whole charade BS.......INJUNCTION!

yes i am, but they wont let me bet the way i want, or anyone else for that matter without a bunch of red tape.

I'll bet your good at that

This is all opinion but....

The PAYMENT on some of those jury awards might very well be affected. The BOC case deals with Samsung's perceived ability to sell Netlist products under the JDLA. Netlist contends that they rightfully and lawfully terminated the contract. Samsung disagrees.

I believe the awards that you outline are based on the time frame that Samsung sold the chips, after the date when Netlist terminated the JDLA contract.

The BOC affects whether or not Samsung had the right to sell products that contained chips that used IP of Netlist's patents, after Netlist terminated the JDLA contract. If Samsung wins the BOC? Then I believe it's possible that they won't have to pay those awards. In fact, I think I remember Samsung arguing that the JDLA gave them LIFELONG access to all of Netlist's patents at the time of the JDLA.

The BOC is very important.

If Samsung loses the BOC?

Then it comes down to the CAFC judgements on the PTAB IPR rulings. These are the actual legal battles over the patent's themselves - whether Netlist made enough changes to the original patent architectures to be able to call it a "new" patent and apply to the PTO for a new patent of the design. Most of those IPR rulings made by the PTAB went against Netlist. Netlist has appealed those IPR rulings to the CAFC. It's the CAFC rulings that are the most important here. If the CAFC rules that one or more of the patents are valid? AND Netlist wins the BOC case (which I think they will)? Then the pertinent jury awards will have to be paid, Samsung will owe HUGE money in interest on those awards AND will owe royalties on all the patents approved by the CAFC - from the date of the jury awards until the date of the CAFC rulings (any that are in favor of Netlist).

You've got to realize that even if Netlist wins the retrial of the BOC? Samsung WILL appeal AGAIN. They will base that appeal on Scarsi's ruling on the motion regarding the complaint about the missing documents. Whether that appeal is heard or not remains to be seen. I believe it will be heard.

It all adds more time. In between, we SHOULD see some of the CAFC rulings on the IPR's.

lol!!! then i'll go back to gambling in the casinos. there only 9 miles away!!!

just more bs.

well we may not beable to afford another play after this one lol

like i said, this is the last litigation play i will ever be involved in.

agreed.

Is this gonna delay all the other netlist wins and $ judgements such as the $445 million from micron and the $303 million from Samslime or just the $118 million win?

I'll never buy another Samslime product that's for sure !

I thought a Jury was made up of just 12 jurors what does #16 have to do with it if he was just a replacement

Stokd $NLST I urge reading the doc to avoid misinterpreting and to really grasp the distinctions of what is ruled on in Scarsi's order, and how. Also, Netlist has not "lost" anything, meaningless delay.

Scarsi ruled in Netlist favor on improperly admitted evidence, against Samsung claims—denied (posted pic prior). New trial is what Samsung won solely due to juror 16.

We won on evidentiary/discovery issues, we won on jury being reasonable enough to reach verdict (JMOL), and we will win trial again.

MrBiggums is on point, makes no difference anyway until CAFC appeals conclude. Till there is a monetary event, and win on BOC/license isn't yet, any pop would fade given patents and infringement verdicts are under CAFC appeal.

Instead, we may have a confluence of events later in litigation. IMO, if you read Scarsi’s ruling, let things digest, you’ll find the long picture and thesis intact.

Of course this does not serve our emotional needs…but it's another catalysts/event/trial for us to win.

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1045432/default.png

Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, LTD (2:22-cv-00293)
District Court, E.D. Texas https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64861664/netlist-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

883

Dec 26, 2024

Main Doc­ument

Notice (Other)

Attach­ment 1

Exhibit A

882

Dec 26, 2024

Main Doc­ument

Sealed Reply to Response to Motion

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1045336/default.jpg

Stokd $NLST And very important—"Samsung now argues the Court should order an evidentiary hearing and authorize a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Netlist toward investigation of potential discovery violations meriting Rule 37 sanctions. Samsung, now questioning Netlist’s discovery conduct throughout this litigation and in another case..."

"The Court is satisfied with Netlist’s explanation for the nonproduction of the document it sought to introduce at trial. The sanction already imposed—disallowing use of the document and striking testimony pertaining to it—is sufficient to address the issue. Samsung does not provide cause to open a can of worms and call into question Netlist’s conduct throughout the discovery period, which Samsung declined to investigate until the second trial of this case."

"The Court finds no good cause or excusable neglect to give Samsung a second bite at the apple. Exercise of discretion to allow further inquiry into Netlist’s discovery conduct at this stage is inappropriate."
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1044855/default.png

Stokd $NLST Scarsi—“The parties are advised to chill.” lol

Some positives here, really everything but juror 16 as the ONLY reason for new trial (Read Sec VI).
—new trial by Apr 1/2025
—total support of Netlist’s position on JDLA & prior trials

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

"Samsung submits that the Court must enter judgment as a matter of law in its favor because no reasonable juror could have determined the parties intended Netlist’s construction of the JDLA. The Court need not look beyond the JDLA itself to find substantial evidence requiring the denial of Samsung’s motion. A reasonable juror reviewing the text of the parties’ contract could interpret the provision consistent with its text—Samsung was unqualifiedly obliged to “supply NAND and DRAM products to Netlist on Netlist’s request at a competitive price".

“Indeed, before reversal by a divided circuit panel, the Court opined that this interpretation was the only reasonable interpretation of the JDLA. That reasoning remains pertinent..."
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1044728/default.png

so sic of this and my luck i filled 84. before I saw news lol