Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) News

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

Well, it is unfortunate but it’s not Earth shattering. It’s just more delay. All of Samsung’s other motions were denied. Had Scarsi ignored the juror issue and affirmed the jury verdict, Samsung would have appealed and any appellate court in the land would have surely ordered a retrial. That would have added another year to the process.

The thing that rankles is that most of the motions by Samsung were made last July and August. To me, Scarsi should have quickly come to a decision and ordered the retrial soon after the juror issue came to light. Instead, he let 5 months slip by. It surely didn’t take that long to ferret out the actual details about Juror 16.

Who knows how much longer Scarsi would have let this drag out, had not the litigants forced his ruling using the local rule.

It’s all water over the dam now, but it certainly throws a shadow over Scarsi. Something smells rotten in Denmark here.

But on we go. I wouldn’t think there’s much doubt that a different set of jurors would still come to the same verdict, after hearing the same evidence.

It’s just more time.

Stokd $NLST New trial all due to Juror16, really did us in...what kind of smoke & mirrors / magic did Samsung pull! Everyone involved know Juror16 did not influence the trial, but with a willing participant judge I guess....Samsung can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

Reaching here..🙄
"Netlist, approaching the issue under the lens of McDonough, downplays the false answers Juror 16 gave at voir dire, noting that any racial animus Juror 16 might harbor against her Korean party opponent cuts against both parties to this case given that numerous witnesses of Korean and East Asian descent testified on both sides, and that Juror 16’s prior litigation experience as a defendant might bias her in favor of Samsung here. But an impartial juror deprives both parties of their right to a fair trial. And the information Juror 16 chose to conceal here “bespeak[s] a lack of impartiality” and undermines the Court’s confidence in her capacity to have fairly adjudged this action, whether because she preferred..."
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1043965/default.png

Stokd $NLST I’m in disbelief… Scarsi granted a new trial in the BOC case, and final judgment is postponed till after. Samsung's post trial motions (JMOL & evidentiary hearing) are denied.

When will this BOC saga end!!!

"Netlist’s motion to strike (ECF No. 625) is denied. Samsung’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and limited discovery (ECF No. 589) is denied. Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (ECF Nos. 596–97) is denied. Samsung’s motion for a new trial (ECF Nos. 596–97) is granted. Netlist’s motion for entry of judgment (ECF No. 593) is denied.
The Court orders the parties to meet and confer and file a joint statement by January 7, 2025, proposing dates for a jury trial to begin no later than April 1, 2025. Alternatively, the parties may stipulate for a referral to alternative dispute resolution proceedings."
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/1043742/default.png

your scaring me with rs talk

just great isnt it!!! here we go again......

I put some funds in my account thinking I'd add soon. But now I'm not so sure. Seems like more delays, more legal fees, and probably more dilution. We may go lower still, maybe .50s, and I'm starting to think a little 5x1 or 10x1 Reverse Split may happen before everything is finalized and payments finally come our way. If that happens, our OS will be nice and low and the stock movement will be truly exponential.

I'll be buying 580 shares at open that will fill my qouta and then I guess set back and wait

Accumulation phase completed for the most. Best time to buy for me is now. 
Happy trading. 

"100lbStriper
Tuesday, December 24, 2024 4:55:52 PM

NLST In case anyone is worried about a potential BOC retrial, re-read this and you’ll rest easy and have a Merry Christmas"

LOLOL! OK. Shure.

At least DaCourt waited until after Christmas before it dropped DaBomb. So at least the NLST baggholders could celebrate Christmas in ignorance.

New Year's Eve partying - welp nottsomuch.

The NLST turd's shart is nott purty - #winning?

Merry Christmas from Juror 16 (nott to be CONfused with Clint Eastwood's Juror #2).

Under the wrapping paper, in DaBoxx is a bill for several more million$ in legal fee$ and expert witness expense$ - trials are very expensive. And it's nott possible to reliably predict jury reasoning and verdicts. Every jury is unique and predicting how any given jury will decide is like picking numbers for MegaMillions or Powerball lotteries; you might be right, butt if you are it's just pure chance.

I know of so many just wild-ass jury stories (in both civil and criminole cases) that, if written, they could fill a 5 volume book set - or mebbe more appropriately several years of a weekly comic book. It's like sausage-making, if you really saw how juries "think" and decide cases, you'd lose any faith you may have in the jury system (at least in the USA, butt prolly most other places as well, as people are basically people and rational thought is an increasingly rare trait among the human population).

BTW (and parenthetically), I read the court's ruling and, with regard to Juror 16, it is spot-on correct. If this court didn't grant a new trial, the appellate court would have. THAT would have caused a very long delay. So look at the bright side - you've gott another Powerball ticket and the drawing is a cuppla years earlier than if this had to go to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Juror 16 disqualification issue (which, based on the facts cited by DaCourt, is pretty egregious conduct by Juror 16 and ought to be punished).








Sit back and settle in for some more trial daze







OTOH, time seems nott to be on the side of NLST baggholders

New BOC trial to begin no later than April 1st, 2025. Possibly earlier.

It unfortunate but I don’t think there’s too much doubt that NLST will win this re-trial. Just more damn delay.

CRAP! I was afraid of this. New trial granted in BOC Case!

Case 8:20-cv-00993-MCS-ADS Document 640 Filed 12/26/24

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.640.0.pdf

New NLST Short Interest report 12/24/24 (for the period ending 12/13/2024):

Short interest increased AGAIN in NLST, up 504,866 shares to 8,270,786 shares short (up from 7,765,920 shares short on 11/29/24 - a 6.5% increase). Next report due out on 01/10/25 (for period ending 12/31/2024).

Some entity is def trying to drive down the price of NLST. It will be a good-sized squeeze, on solid good news of a CAFC win or a settlement.

Market Outlook
"The market is finally giving hints of a bullish resurgence. Today a bullish pattern is detected. Based on this pattern, in response to emerging market bullishness the system established new confirmation and stop loss levels. The signal tells us to STAY IN CASH, but the chance of a bullish confirmation that will change the signal to BUY is quite high. The Delayed Intraday Module is ON. We strongly suggest you to follow the price action on an intraday basis in order to profit most from the early phase of a possible bull run."

Happy trading 👍

Merry Christmas to all and can't wait for the injunction let's go

So much to be thankful for during this holiday season as we celebrate Christmas, and as we press on to finish the race and receive the prize which Netlist has in store for us. Here's to a happy and profitable 2025 for all Netlist longs and Merry Christmas to all!

Life goes on. Hang tough. Merry Christmas and fingers crossed for a great 2025!!

NLST In case anyone is worried about a potential BOC retrial, re-read this and you’ll rest easy and have a Merry Christmas 🎄 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.625.0.pdf

agreed, lets get it over with and move on.

Whatever it takes to get them to the table and make deals with the crooks is ok with us. Merry Christmas to al NLST longs!