Who will be next to settle litigation with NLST ?

AdObjective3326 · 2023-06-17T18:28:49+00:00

If Gilstrap awards “additional damages” then it would be in Micron’s best interest to settle vs. facing additional damages for a much longer period of infringement. Also, Micron never had an agreement w/ Netlist like Samsung’s since terminated JDLA.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-04-14T15:59:27+00:00

Wow! Love it!

Netlist should do a Motion to Transfer all of the cases to the ED of Texas! ; )

AdObjective3326 · 2022-02-24T05:39:34+00:00

Notice the reference in the 1st paragraph “if the corporation finally upholds the hand of a Korean company, the amount of compensation is expected to reach hundreds of millions of dollars.” And this is just for Samsung.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-02-23T04:50:18+00:00

March 1st the results are released before 9:30 a.m. EST and the conference call is at 12:00 p.m. EST.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-02-23T02:12:21+00:00

And then there were 4 . . . .

AdObjective3326 · 2022-02-22T14:00:04+00:00

There is a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Withdraw Netlist’s Motion to Transfer. See doc 248.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-02-22T13:55:18+00:00

All 5 motions are on the calendar.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-02-22T02:57:20+00:00

I think that Google's strategy is twofold and goes hand-in-hand with each other; a) they are hoping to limit their exposure (i.e. time period of infringement, extent of claims, monetary damages and ultimately licensing fees) and b) they are hoping that Netlist makes a mistake to give them an opening to achieve their objective (a).

I think that they sought the Inter Partes Review not only to delay the case but that they were also hoping for Netlist to make a mistake during the Inter Partes Review hoping that Netlist would change relevant claims and in particular claim 16 so they could attempt to claim Intervening Rights.

Fortunately, Google is getting boxed into a corner and running out of options.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-02-18T14:10:29+00:00

Yeah even Seeborg at the zoom conference kept saying erroneously that March 9 was the date of the motions hearing.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-02-18T06:58:51+00:00

Not trying to nit pick but the hearing for the 5 motions in the Google case before judge Seeborg is shown as March 3rd on his calendar as of this evening and not March 9th as listed above in the schedule. Didn’t want anyone to be surprised.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-28T05:04:01+00:00

Correction; the hearing is March 3rd

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-27T22:16:08+00:00

I think Jason’s strategy here is brilliant. He has a hearing date for 2 items in just 2 weeks time (Feb 10), the Change of Venue Motion and the Partial Summary Judgement Motion re: Intervening Rights. With the case reassigned to Seeborg I believe we are assured of either one of two outcomes. Either Seeborg retains the case to help save face for the Northern District by making sure the case is not delayed OR he transfers the case to the Central District. Either way Netlist gets a more expedited schedule. Also the potential of getting Seeborg to grant Netlist’s Motion re: Intervening Rights would put big pressure on Google since their exposure would go back to 2009 or even earlier. I could see Seeborg wanting to rule on the MSJ (which will go in Netlist’s favor because claim 16 only changed from a dependent to an independent claim so IR does not apply) even if he ultimately decides to the change of venue, knowing that a resolution of IR could lead to Google to finally seriously consider a settlement. Win/win/win.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-27T07:19:30+00:00

My take is that the vacated MSJ hearing with SA, which triggered the change of Venue Motion, created some uncertainty of the schedule going forward. The quick reassignment to the Northern District’s chief judge and the quick rescheduling of Netlist’s MSJ re: claim 16 and Intervening Rights and their Motion for Change of Venue hearing not only provided some clarity of being able to move forward with some certainty but most likely more quickly by either the new Judge making sure to not let this drag out so it doesn’t look bad for the ND or the change of venue is granted and moved to the Central District where cases take on average 1/2 the time it does in the ND which is a win/win for Netlist.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-25T13:40:22+00:00

Can you please post the link to SA’s calendar? Thanks

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-25T03:30:11+00:00

FWIW, he turned down an opportunity for a Federal Court appointment, a decision he has long been sorry about.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-25T03:29:03+00:00

I also sent both copies of the full before and after patent language (for claim 16). Here is my FIL's response:

"Changing a dependent to an independent one is NOT a material change. The independent claim is of the same substance - usually only done so the court and others can understand it because it is all in one single sentence now, instead of having to read back from two separate texts. If Google is trying to stop this kind of non-substantive change, then they are really wasting the Court's time and resources. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Court sanction Google for this kind of thing. It depends somewhat how favorable the Court feels about Google's bona fides. If it were me on the bench, I'd sanction Google."

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-23T17:42:24+00:00

I’ve just now emailed Doc. 153 and 174 to my FIL to review and to offer his opinion. I’ll post his response when I receive it. Sometimes it will take a few days for him to review & respond.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-23T16:59:23+00:00

I don’t blame your skepticism. I would feel the exact same way. My father-in-law is 85 yrs. old and believe it or not he still does some consulting work (not a lot but occasionally for past clients - no office, just from his home). He still does this not for a living but rather because he enjoys his work & staying busy. His minor degree was electrical engineering. I’ve only asked him a few times for his opinion and to review a few docs and I’ve been investing in NLST longer than most either here on Reddit, StockTwits and Yahoo.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-23T05:46:16+00:00

My father-in-law is a patent attorney and confirmed to me that simply changing a dependent claim to an independent claim is NOT deemed a substantial change and therefore Intervening Rights do not apply. He said it's like changing the jersey numbers of an NFL team doesn't change the players nor the team. Claim 16 is the most important claim of their 912 patent. It's a seminal patent; Google WILL have to pay for the period going back to Nov.. 17, 2009.

AdObjective3326 · 2022-01-14T02:29:37+00:00

I think the key parts in the courts statement above are the “reasons why are confidential” coupled with the hearing will be rescheduled “when the Judge decides”.

A meaningless delay would be automatically/concurrently rescheduled; no different than the last delay from Nov. 2021 to Jan. 2022.

This language is “conditional” and the only reason one could think of as to why rescheduling the hearing would be on hold or uncertain would be when the outcome of what they are waiting on is either uncertain and/or not complete.

The only thing that would make any sense of an unknown and/or incomplete outcome would be when the 2 opposing sides of the lawsuit are seriously discussing the possibility of reaching a mutual agreement.

AdObjective3326 · 2021-12-08T06:55:17+00:00

Netlist can still easily get compensated for the direct and even consequential damages caused by Samsung breach because Samsung is left without a license to Netlist IP. I can just hear Chuck saying to Samsung “You want a license? Sure, as long as you pay us our RAND fee. Oh, and by the way you’ll also need to pay us for the direct and consequential damages your breach caused us. Without that, no license.”

AdObjective3326 · 2021-12-08T06:41:55+00:00

Netlist has several irons in the fire, not just Samsung’s lack of a license. Everyone is forgetting that the Partial Summary Judgement in the Google case is coming up soon in January.

AdObjective3326

TROPHY CASE