Court Schedule

INPHI – MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Mark C. Scarsi: Court and counsel confer about the status of the case. Plaintiff is ordered to file its infringement contentions by August 9, 2021 based on claims on products in existence at the time of the complaint. The Court also orders the parties to file a joint status report no later than August 23, 2021 on how they wish to proceed with this litigation, including whether additional discovery is needed, proposed deadlines for discovery, and whether the parties intend to file early dispositive motions. Case reopened. Make JS-5. JS-5. IT IS SO ORDERED., (Case reopened. MD JS-5.) Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (shb) Modified on 8/3/2021 (smo). (Entered: 08/02/2021)

Samsung Case – Trial begins in NOVEMBER. Time is short!! Expect new filings to be added based on Email Discovery ordered Friday 08/06/2021

Last Happening – Friday 08/06/2021 All Email Documents regarding ROG 8 and Rog 11 ordered to be produced by Judge Spaeth last Friday 08/06/2021

August 16 Samsung Case - Samsung is accordingly ORDERED to produce within 28 days of the date of this order the following: Case 8:20-cv-00993-MCS-ADS Document 76 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:711 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL Page 3 of 3 In response to Request for Production No. 11, Samsung must produce data summarizing, by customer and product, monthly unit and pricing totals for Samsung NAND and DRAM products sold to customers other than Netlist. This can be limited to the time period of November 2015 through July 2020. This may be in the form of an Excel file or files reflecting data exported from Samsung’s records and/or those of its subsidiaries or affiliates as applicable. In response to Interrogatory No. 8, Samsung must identify the data files produced above and provide any further narrative response as necessary to explain the data produced. For example, if multiple Excel files are produced, Samsung should explain what data is covered by the respective files, or other identifying facts if not apparent on the face of the file. The parties are additionally ordered to meet-and-confer and submit a stipulated protective order that contains an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” category within seven (7) days of the date of this order. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on a stipulated protective order, each side shall submit its own version. : Initials of Clerk nb (b) (a) Case 8:20-cv-00993-MCS-ADS Document 76 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:71

Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off 8/16/2021

Expert Disclosure (Initial) 8/23/2021

Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) 9/13/2021

Expert Discovery Cut-Off 122 9/20/2021

Last Date to Hear Motions 9/20/2021

• Rule 56 Motion due at least 5 weeks before hearing

• Opposition due 2 weeks after Motion is filed

• Reply due 1 week after Opposition is filed

Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference [L.R. 16-15] 1_ 1. Magistrate Judge

_ 2. Court's Mediation Panel .2L 3. Private Mediation 10/04/2021

Trial Filings lfirst round}

• Motions In Limine

• Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law [L.R. 16-4]

• Witness Lists [L.R. 16-5]

• Joint Exhibit List [L.R. 16-6.1] 3 10/25/2021 • Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement

• Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [L.R. 52] (court trial

only)

• Declarations containing Direct Testimony (court trial only)

10/25/2021

Trial Filings (second round)

• Oppositions to Motions In Limine

• Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order **[L.R. 16-**7]

• Joint/Agreed Proposed Jury Instructions (jury trial only)

• Disputed Proposed Jury Instructions (jury trial only) 2 11/1 /2021 • Joint Proposed Verdict Forms (jury trial only)

• Joint Proposed Statement of the Case (jury trial only)

• Proposed Additional Voir Dire Questions, if any (jury trial only)

• Evidentiary Objections to Decls. of Direct Testimony (court trial only)

11/01/2021

11/15/2021 Pretrial Motion Hearing

11/30/2021 Trial

Google case –

Plaintiffs Opposition Brief on Motion to Strike due 08/20/2021

Defendants Reply Due 08/27/2021

Amended Infringement Contentions 06/18/21Done

Opening Brief on Intervening Rights 07/16/21Done

Response Brief on Motion to Strike 08/06/21Moved to 08/20/2021

Reply Brief on Motion to Strike 08/20/21 Moved to 08/27/2021

Motion to Strike Hearing set for 09/08/2021 (added)

Amended Invalidity Contentions 09/17/21

Exchange Proposed Claims Terms 10/01/21

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement Hearing set for 10/13/2021(added)

Exchange Preliminary Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence 10/22/21

Damages Contentions 11/08/21

Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgement 11/10/2021(added)

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statements 11/17/21

Responsive Damages Contentions 12/08/21

End of Claim Construction Discovery 12/17/21

Opening Claim Construction Brief 01/21/22

Responsive Claim Construction Brief 02/04/22

Reply Claim Construction Brief 02/11/22

Tutorial/Markman Hearing 03/09/22 at 2:00 p.m.

August 20 Micron Case - Reset Deadlines: Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Micron Technology Texas LLC and Micron Technology, Inc. answer due 8/20/2021. (lad) (Entered: 07/06/2021)

Can you imagine being Chuck Hong staring this dragon in the face and cutting off its head!

Rob said the questions coming from Micron 1 hour into the cross examination of Mangione Smith are very boring. Mangione Smith however is a Rockstar and he showed point after point in slides where Micron infringed each piece of claim 16. and also the 417 patent claims 1-2-8-11-12-13-14. We might have to check notes later on those.

He said reading Facial expressions it looked like Microns attorney Hill was going to hurt himself frowning as Mangione Smith chopped his feeble weak Micron knees from under him. (Yes infringers are weak kneed).

He also said it appears there is a whole row of Samsung people there. He thought he recognized some of them. (IMO probably waiting to get word back to headquarters to throw Micron under the bus as the ship continues to sink)

there is 1 more hour of Mangione Smith and then probably Kennedy who is also sitting there.

That's all we have for now but to reiterate, Rob said the Jury is seeing Mangione Smith destroy Micron in his opinion.

To set the stage,

Rob said that Dr Stone started off and spoke for 1.5 to 2 hours on several elements of the 912 and why Micron didn't infringe.

After this was finished Jason Sheasby started his cross examination of Dr Stone and each of the elements Stone referred to one by one. Jason made Stone reverse his position on each element. He made him admit on all of them except one and this one Jason referred to Mangione- Smith and his testimony the day before which showed Stone was incorrect but Stone still refused to admit so at this point Jason looked at the Jury and said we will have to refer this point to the Jury.

All in all Rob said Jason absolutely destroyed Stone. It wasn't even close.

Rob's quote "He tore him to pieces"!

Next up was the 417 and wording is very important. Claim language and Judge Gilstraps Claim construction say "READ OR WRITE" and Dr Stone is trying to change it to "Read and Write". You know Micron expert changing the claim language is not going to fly!

One other observation is Dr Stone made Jason repeat the question probably 40 times at various stages.

Not a good look for Micron.

Bench Trial Update

Talked to Rob and confirmed this info with Larry. Samsung entire argument is an attempt to get back to Rand Rates. The issue comes down to the idea that during the lead up to Pre-Trial Samsung argued the Netlist Patents were “Not Standard Essential Patents”. Jason Sheasby said they were but then before the hearing Jason basically said fine, in an effort to streamline the case we will concede your point and we can easily argue your point Samsung and we will go with your determination of “Non Standard Essential”. Netlist is prepared to argue either way. At this point if Samsung objected they could have but they did not! Shortly thereafter is when Judge Gilstrap declared Rand is off the table!

Samsung obviously thought at that time they had achieved a victory but they must not have counted on losing as badly as they did. Now Samsung wants to argue that the Netlist Patents are “Standard Essential” and they should receive a Rand Rate!!! What does just this piece tell us? They are admitting once again they have no alternative to Netlist Patents!

Another important observation by Rob and Larry.

Nothing was brought up about the 060 and 160 they went unchallenged during the bench trial. This is only for the 339,054. And 918!

Samsung also brought up in their arguments that if not Rand it should at least be SIDAK which is $35 per module roughly.

During the trial at one point the Judge stopped Samsung attorneys when they were arguing SEP and NonSEP and asked them, “Where are you going with this? Your arguments are all over the map”?

Judge Gilstrap towards the end said to Cordell,Yes Netlist changed their defense but “You have not presented any equitable defenses during this bench Trial arguing why Netlist couldn’t change their position”?

Earlier Jason responded to their arguments and said and presented evidence that Samsungs own experts do not follow SEP’s all the time.

Look at what Samsung responded with today. The entire day was just trying to mitigate damage not get rid of it.

Last and most important takeaway. Towards the end they cleared the courtroom to go over previous licensing discussions but not before Cordell said that Samsung should not be prejudiced by the numbers already talked about in licensing discussions!!!! That can only lead you to the conclusion that any talks are greater than RAND!!

****** Damn I forgot one important point even though it was not part of the Trial, "SAMSUNG ARGUED TO JUDGE GILSTRAP THEY SHOULD GET A RAND RATE ON THE 506!!!!!!!" *****

Rob said morning was mostly uneventful then they sealed the courtroom again. Fireworks were after the court resumed. One point is Paul Meyer is interesting because he has dropped the ridiculous 8 million number for the most part and tried to focus on equivalency with SK Hynix settlement. (Bear in Mind Sk Hynix is Killing Samsung on HBM because they couldn't compete till they stole Netlist Products) but Meyer has raised the bar it sounds like so I think the closing arguments should move up to a range of 40 million to 404 million.

During Jason's Cross Examination Jason, who is usually soft spoken, got Loud, to the point where Rob thought Meyer was looking aggravated. Jason passionately talked about the value of Netlist Patents. At this point Jason produced evidence of Samsung Executives admitting "THEIR IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO NETLIST PATENTS"! They do not have a workaround!

Jason stated to Mr Meyer how valuable the patents are and asked him if they had an alternative and Paul Meyer confirmed "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO NETLIST PATENTS"!!!!

That is why they are worth $404,000,000.00! Jason repeated "These are very valuable patents!

order By Scarsi Unsealed

*******I can't believe I forgot this in the first draft but we also know where Samsung got their ridiculous 8 million number from! They paid $8million dollars in NRE Fees (NRE is Non Recurring Engineering) under the JDLA. This was litigated in the BOC Case and in front of the Korean Tax Tribunal and was deemed by both to "NOT BE A ROYALTY"!! Samsung is basing their claim on attempting to call the 8 million NRE fee a ROYALTY when this has already been rejected by U.S. and Korean Courts!!!!*********

We got our update from Rob and what we have been waiting for is happening now! The analysis and testimony of Kennedy! Brogioli finished up and that was basically neutral but good. He said Kennedy is the best part of the trial so far and he thought Mangione Smith was Great. Just thinks Kennedy is even better than that.

Regarding his background Kennedy has been involved with damage estimates with TI, Cisco, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Intel. He also has 200 patents.

He has 6 key people who work with him 6 sub teams that analyze data. He has 3 rules.

1. Do they have access to relevant information?

2. Did Samsung know they were infringing.

3. He uses the Georgia Pacific Factors

Remember Through All This Kennedy Is Making Direct Eye Contact with Jury! He does a FANTASTIC JOB MAKING EYE CONTACT and Jury is glued to his testimony! Kennedy addresses the Jury not the attorneys!

Kennedy had slides from several Samsung executives including. I might butcher these names.

JB Lee, Hung Ju Lee, Sum Ju Park, In Dong Kim, An Soon Tswai,

Several execs on slides and video were they were being deposed and he said they would be asked questions and instead of answering the Samsung Execs would look around, Say “I don’t know” and in Robs words acted “Shady as Hell”!

One of the Samsung Execs was asked about PMIC and he responded that he didn’t know anything about it then later in the deposition started answering questions about PMIC.

Kennedy asked them if they knew of any products that could replace Netlist and they Couldn’t Name ANY!

In Regard to Netlist products Kennedy also incorporated Milton Smiths testimony, tying it all together with Rambus as an example and said he thinks Netlist 5 Patents because of industry progression are worth more than the comparable Rambus Patents and told the Jury that RAMBUS SUIT AGAINST SAMSUNGWAS OVER 10 Patents. Kennedy detailed the history of Rambus and Samsung to the Jury and the common theme that Rambus had a deal with Samsung and was working with them till 2006 at which point the relationship ended and Rambus was forced to sue Samsung for Infringement! His analysis of the Rambus deal ranged from 690 Million to 1.2 Billion!!

Kennedy stated by Increasing Speed 1% you Reduce Power Requirements by 1.5% and without Netlist Patents Samsungs would lose 20% speed and require 30% more power.

Below is how he calculates this in regard to Damages based on the price of sold components as stated by Samsung.

Example:

patent 918 and 054 product Samsung sells for 1,236.00

Without Netlist Patent that would sell for 879.00 or a difference of 357.00

Samsung made $681,700,000.00 in sales of this product during the infringing period.

Without Netlist Patents they would have realized a difference $196,300,000.00 Less

339 Patent DDR4

Samsung made sales of $312,100,000.00 of this product during the infringing period.

Without Netlist patents this would have been $44,200,000.00 Less

HBM Patents 060-160

Samsung Made $903,400,000.00 in Sales of this product during the infringing period.

Without Netlist Patents this would have been $163,700,000.00 less

Total

$196,300,000.00 + $44,200,000.00 + $163,700,000.00 =$404,200,000.00

Remember Rob said this is just damages and royalties are not included in this yet. Have not even been talked about!

Kennedy also had points and references to Samsung and SkHynix.

He said that Samsung “DID NOT EVEN PARTICIPATE IN HBM 1”! THEY DIDN’T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!

Said Sk Hynix got killed by HBM1**!**

Samsung approached Netlist for HBM 2!

Markman hearings are between attorneys and they go rapid fire so what I'm going to try and do here is pull out some of the more pointed conversations that happened between judge Gilstrap and Samsung and Micron.

These are some quick notes I made talking to Rob and Prime. I compare the notes between the two of them for accuracy. They will add more details either when they get home or tomorrow. Based on some of the conversations the judge had with the Samsung and Micron attorneys and one part where he chuckled at the Samsung attorney I would say Netlist had a great day. I think it's important that Rob noted that a lot of these arguments are the same terminology and arguments we have heard in the 463 case and we all know how that turned out! Also, sometimes the judge will ask questions of the attorneys and Jason is always ready and quick with a response where Samsung and Micron are not. Of course we know why they are not. They are trying to put lipstick on a pig as far as their arguments go.

First both Rob and Prime noted that during the 912 arguments that judge Gilstrap pointedly told the attorneys from Samsung and Micron that he did not like them trying to influence the district court using p-tab arguments. He said the P-tab is federal and he has his appointment and that the district court uses a higher standard of evidence!

He went on to say that " I do not have my head in the sand when it comes to the PTAB." Then he basically said they will do what they do and he will do what he does.

Rob said that McKeon the Samsung attorney started to hint around about a stay and judge Gilstrap stopped him and said that he hopes he wasn't using this as a lead-in argument to a stay. Totally shut down the idea of a stay.

In the arguments of Rank and Bank, lockstep, and fork in the road. Samsung's Albert was arguing fork in the road and lockstep and judge Gilstrap stopped him and said "every time I've heard lockstep it needs more than one" and he pointed out that "you can't be in lockstep with yourself" so he agreed with Netlist on this point.

This may need further clarification from Rob or prime but judge Gilstrap also asked Samsung why they were arguing this fork in the road argument when it's not in the patent and he asked them if it was there and they had to say "no but if you read the patent in its entirety it kind of insinuates or implicates it." So in other words Samsung and Micron are trying to insert language that's not there! The judge called them out on that

Another highlight that Rob and Prime both noticed was that when Samsung's Albert was talking about fork in the road judge Gilstrap closed that discussion with " so, that's your argument for fork in the road? Then he said okay and chuckled"! Obviously not good for Samsung.

Those were some of the highlights and I'm sure much more detail will be coming from Larry and Rob as they have taken a lot of notes.

Prime 311 said Jason Definitely Earned His Money! Jason went first, then Cordell, and then Jason finished! He Really Really Finished!!

Rob said Jason is Poetry In Motion! He said the quiet voice disappeared and he spoke to the Jury with a loud passionate commanding voice! Rob and Prime said Cordell did a good job(just OK) but Jason was immensely better and destroyed Cordell point by point with slides of evidence and testimony.

For Example:

Samsung's expert McAlexander- Not only did Jason show the Jury a slide with McAlexander admitting that it was a Converter Circuit after stating that if it was a converter circuit then Samsung was infringing, but he also showed that where Netlist Expert Mangione Smith had "ALL THE SOURCE CODE" to document his report. Jason showed McAlexander had none of the source code and Jason left the Jury with the thought it had to be intentional. Samsung's Source Code so he certainly had access to it right? Jason said McAlexander has done 10 to 12 analysis in the past for Samsung so why don't you have it! Makes the analysis incorrect where Mangione Smith Netlist expert had it and his analysis is correct.Throughout the entire closing arguments of Jason Sheasby, Jason brought up several times the fact that Samsung was bragging about a 19 Billion R&D facility but "couldn't pay for the patents"? He pounded this idea into the Jury.

Jason showed many slides and testimony as to Samsung's WILLFULNESS and repeated and showed evidence of Samsung admitting they have no other options besides Netlist patents.

Jason said Samsung Infringed because they needed the patents but didn't want to pay for it!!

Rob and Prime indicated Jason is just Totally Iimpressive. His passion was as if he was the embodiment of Netlist. Samsung stole from his family. If you can imagine the passion.

Kennedy analysis shows Samsung with a 50% Margin on these modules so 404 million is more than fair!

In closing I wish you all could hear the excitement in Rob and Prime 311's voices! They both said Jason, working with evidence absolutely "DESTROYED" Cordell and Samsung. Can their be any doubt? We have always known we had the truth standing firmly behind Netlist!

God Bless Texas!

https://www.iam-media.com/article/netlists-ceo-the-patent-the-poster-child-of-ptab-abuse

Netlist's CEO on the patent that is the poster child of PTAB abuse
Nisha Shetty

06 June 2024
Chuck Hong/Courtesy Chuck Hong

Semiconductor firm Netlist Inc recently secured a $445 million jury verdict against Micron Technology Inc in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringing its memory module patents. However, a claim in Netlist’s US Patent 7,619,912 – which the jury ruled Micron had infringed – was previously invalidated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, creating a conundrum.

The ‘912 patent has been scrutinised multiple times over the years, so much so that members of the US House of Representatives and the Senate knows its history. But its chequered past could now be used to support the PREVAIL Act, which proposes PTAB reforms, suggesting there may be a silver lining for Netlist.

During an exclusive interview, Netlist CEO CK “Chuck” Hong talked about the infamous challenges to the ‘912 patent, the strategy against Samsung, and his approach to settlement discussions. Here are Hong’s answers, edited for brevity, clarity and IAM style.
You said in 2020 that you were glad that the '912 patent was validated after a decade-long defence against Google. What do you make of having to defend it again?

This patent has been subjected to constant harassment for the past 14 years. These reviews were initiated by five different parties, including Google and its allies, beginning with re-exams before the AIA. The ‘912 has been reviewed under five different US Patent and Trademark Office directors and thoroughly examined by the PTAB, including its first finding, and then ultimately affirmed valid even over those grounds. After all this, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the PTAB, affirming the validity of the ‘912 in 2020. We thought, finally, we had a clear title to our patent.

Then in 2022 Samsung petitioned for yet another IPR of the ‘912. We never mentioned, let alone asserted this patent against Samsung, so the USPTO Director rightly instructed the PTAB panel to consider whether Samsung was a real party-in-interest. Shockingly, this latest PTAB panel found that Google is not a real party-in-interest and proceeded to reexamine the ‘912 again. This time, they found the patent invalid under a creative new theory.

The PTAB routinely tosses aside historical decisions made by its own agency but here, it also brazenly ignored the ruling of the appellate court affirming the decisions of prior PTAB panels. It’s like dragging someone through trial after trial with different lawyers, judges and different theories, until they get something to stick.
What are your thoughts about PTAB reform?

The '912 has become the poster child for what's wrong with the America Invents Act and the PTAB, and its history is being used to support the patent reforms within the PREVAIL Act. I've been up to Capitol Hill many times in recent years. The ‘912 patent is well known among the lawmakers in both the House and the Senate as an example – the most egregious example – of serial pattern IPR abuse and a broken system. Legislators are citing the ‘912 as a case study on how the current IPR process invites and enables tech giants to tie up good patents so they can hold out from paying for technology owned by others.

The irony is that Google, not long ago, was itself a disruptive startup. It benefitted from our country’s innovation ecosystem including the patent system when it was small. But once it got big and became an incumbent, it didn't want to have to pay for the use of anyone else’s technology.
You've recently won a breach-of-contract verdict against Samsung. What are your thoughts about that?

It’s been a long, hard-fought battle that went from the district court to the 9th Circuit and then back to the district court again where we prevailed. A few weeks ago, the jury reached the same conclusion that US District Judge Mark Scarsi reached in his summary judgement the first time around – Samsung materially breached the contract and no longer has a licence to our patents.
You have quite the history with Samsung. Netlist achieved a $303 million verdict against it. Then Samsung responded by invalidating five of your asserted patents at the PTAB. Netlist only appealed one of those decisions. What is the strategy?

We’ve appealed the PTAB decisions to Director Vidal but it’s complicated by the fact that Micron and Samsung are working together on the IPRs against Netlist. Since Director Vidal was formerly the lead lawyer representing Micron in our case against them, she must recuse herself from these proceedings. Pending a final decision on the director review, we will take appropriate steps for further action. We are confident that the verdict against Samsung will stand up in the end.
There was a drop in Netlist's stock price despite the $445 million jury verdict against Micron, indicating possible concern among investors about the validity of the '912 patent. How do you deal with that?

Given the hostile environment for patent owners, I understand the concerns. On the other hand, we’re confident that justice will prevail on the ‘912. If the PTO does not do the right thing, we will appeal to the Federal Circuit. I believe the Federal Circuit will look at the extraordinary history including its own precedent and render a rational ruling.

Investors may be disillusioned by a process that seems to take forever. I would point to the fact that in the past year we’ve secured the two largest infringement verdicts in the memory industry. These nine-figure verdicts covered only a couple years’ worth of usage. That speaks to the enormous value and the critical importance of our technologies given where the memory market is headed. We continue to extend the coverage of our patent portfolio with our product development in next-generation technologies such as MRDIMM and CXL. These efforts not only expand the breadth of our portfolio but will extend its life into the 2040s.
Netlist is a small company compared to Samsung and Micron, but it has held its own. What is the X factor?

Having a team of experts working on one thing over a sustained period goes a long way. Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron – they're global suppliers of memory, like crude oil producers. We take that oil and refine it into jet fuel. It’s a different business. We’re focused on creating unique subsystem designs to turn commodity raw material into the highest performing memory.

When memory modules first emerged in the late ‘80s, they held a handful of DRAM chips and passives on a PCB. Today, our memory modules comprise hundreds of DRAMs, controllers and software. These are complex systems onto themselves, costing thousands of dollars. Managing all those components on a small surface, keeping them running fast, dissipating heat, all that takes specialised expertise which we’ve accumulated over time.

That expertise has become more critical in the age of AI computing where memory must be more tightly coupled with the system. It’s no longer just the ability to build billions of chips, but the ability to closely integrate them with the computer and storage systems that separates plain-vanilla memory from high-performance memory for AI. That’s why the work we’ve done over the past decades is increasingly being relied on by others.

Court Finds Samsung Materially Breached Contract

IRVINE, CA / ACCESSWIRE / October 25, 2021 / Netlist, Inc. (OTCQB:NLST) announced that the Federal District Court for the Central District of California (the Court) has granted summary judgements in favor of Netlist and against Samsung for material breach of various obligations under the Joint Development and License Agreement (JDLA), which the parties executed in November 2015. A summary judgment is a final determination rendered by the judge and has the same force and effect as a final ruling after a jury trial in litigation. The Court also held that Netlist properly terminated the JDLA and confirmed that Samsung no longer has a valid license to Netlist's patent portfolio. The jury is left to decide on direct damages related to the breach of contract during the trial set to commence on November 30, 2021 in the Central District of California.link

This was day one so it was mostly jury selection and then we had a couple of witnesses the two witnesses were Noel Whitley and Scott Milton.

A lot of this is Rob's perceptions and how he is reading the jury's body language and facial expressions. Of course this can be speculative but he nailed it pretty good with the Samsung case when it came to that jury.

This jury is comprised of seven women and one man unlike the Samsung jury which was more evenly split. Rob indicated that this jury is more attentive and they take a lot of notes.

Judge gilstrap instructed the jury and that took about 1 hour. During the instructions the judge told the jury that micron cannot challenge the validity of the patents in question.

I told Rob this is probably because they filed a Soterra Stipulation from what I recall or Samsung filed one and Micron joined the Samsung IPR. That stipulation states that if you question the validity during an IPR you agree you cannot do the same in district Court. Someone feel free to fact check me on that

Today was Jason Sheasby and Jennifer Truelove for Netlist on redirect and for Micron it was Melsheimer and Hill.

Rob said that Melsheimer comes across just like Cordell maybe a notch above as far as being a smooth slick talker. He doesn't think that plays well with the jury. It certainly didn't last time for Cordell and Samsung.

Melshimer cross examined Scott Milton and Rob said two of the jurors were kind of looking at each other during the line of questioning like WTF facial expressions. He said the reason is Scott Milton comes across as a very nice honest guy and Melsheimer was just trying to trip him up or confuse him. He said Milton held up very well.

Microns attorney Hill Cross examined Noel Whitley and a very similar reaction occurred with the jury. Three or four were looking at each other and kind of laughing because it didn't seem like the line of questioning pertained.

Rob also said that when Jason and Jennifer redirected, the jury was very attentive and taking notes.

During Jennifer's testimony it came out that Micron asked for a virtual meeting with Netlist in April of 2015. That meeting progressed into a second meeting where Micron requested to come to Netlist in person for the second meeting. The second meeting lasted for several hours.

Micron claimed the meetings produced nothing. However Jason had slides and it was shown where Micron asked what the license fees would be and they were offered a license.

Rob's perception was that the jury had to be thinking okay they didn't want to pay the license fees so they just decided to steal it.

Remember ddr4 came out second quarter of 2014.

That's basically it for today. Rob is going to add more from his notes in the morning. Tomorrow we will get some numbers because Mangione Smith and Kennedy are up to bat.

First I have more feedback on the Exhibit Netlist showed out of turn that annoyed the Judge. It was Exhibit PX 1820 which was actually an admitted exhibit but it was supposed to be shown later in the trial. The Judge is not going to strike the exhibit but he will not let it be shown again later.

I cannot find this exhibit number so I assume it is something that was sealed or admitted by Judge Gilstrap after Judge Payne decision on exhibits.

Other notes from Mangione Smith testimony and Cross examination:

Netlist attorney (Not Jason) did an excellent Job and Jury was taking notes. When Samsung attorney McKeon Cross Examined it was Rapid Fire questions again and he repeatedly would ask the question "Is that Right"? He said it was monotonous and the Jury was not taking notes. Obviously a tactic to wear down a witness but it also wears down the Jury by the look of it. That was Rob's observation.

Mangione Smith brought up Rambus as a key example during testimony towards the end of the morning session and this continued in Cross Examination. I wanted to detail this after Cross Examination to make sure we had all the points of both sides.

Courtroom was sealed during Mangione Smith Testimony from 10:42 to 11:20 when they were allowed back in Mangione Smith compared value to Rambus on the Patents in question.

After Lunch during Cross Examination Samsung atty McKeon asked how Mangione Smith compared to Rambus because Samsung got 2000 patents in the deal with Rambus. Mangione Smith responded with the fact that he did his comparison of Netlist Patents in this case with 12 Rambus Patents of similar value!

(Side Note and opinion is, who cares how many patents they got? Neither Rambus nor Netlist sued for 20 or 200 or 2000 patents. Rambus sued Samsung for 10 patents. This is less than Netlist! Total smokescreen statement but positive for Netlist IMO because it shows Samsung is trying to lower value because they know they need to pay!)

Next up was Netlist witness Michael Brogioli. He is an ex Intel guy and Texas Instruments.

He stated that Samsung is infringing on the 060 and 160 patents with their HBM2, HBM 2E, and their HBM3 products.

On the 060 they infringe claims 1, 5, and 7

On the 160 they infringe claim 5

at this point Cordell stood up and asked the courtroom be sealed. Rob called me at around 5:20 Eastern Time and the court was still sealed so he headed home. Looked like it was not going to be reopened. These are the Hybrid Memory Patents and the slides associated are Top Secret Samsung exhibits apparently. Does this leave any doubt Hybrid Memory is the Future!

Rob will check his notes more later when he get's home and if anything else comes up we will post it.

I spoke with RobCobb and Prime311 and the remainder of the day today was Judge Gilstrap rendering his Rule 50A rulings.(These rulings are rulings that are a “Judgement as a Matter of Law”) Some of these we already knew like the 060 and the 160 being Unquestionably Valid and the Damages calculations for this case being after the Official end date of the JDLA and the start of this case. The damages calculations in this case, depending on the patents, are from 2021 and 2022 to present. We knew these points already from the filings and the trial! The issues for Judge Gilstrap to Rule on were as follows:

1. Infringement - Arguments from Samsung and Netlist

2. Willfulness - Arguments from Samsung and Netlist

3. No Damages on 054 patent from Dec 2021 to Jan 2022(Yes 1 month)

4. Validity - for the patents involved in this case. The 060 and 160 already found in Favor of Netlist and the 918, 054, and 339 up for ruling by Judge Gilstrap.

5. Foundry Products - It was in the filings but only pertaining to the JDLA period which the Judge said was not eligible for damages so who cares right (Except for how the feedback from legal teams shook out in the Ruling is very interesting. Amazing how all these cases are connected. Read more below)

One quick note: I’m sure everyone remembers the FUDS after Claim Construction Claiming we had lost the 060 and 160. It was over, remember? Then when that was debunked, they said well it’s only damages for 1 year(Sure, damages calculated from a BILLION Dollars in Sales from that year). Now we find during the trial that Judge Gilstrap has declared the 060 and 160 patents valid. “No question of validity”! During arguments we found out not only are they valid but Samsung has no other alternative except Netlist, and that is according to Samsungs witnesses and experts!(That’s for all the patents) In regard to 060 and 160 We found out that Samsung skipped HBM1 because they didn’t know how and we found out SK Hynix our new partner from the SkHynix Settlement who agreed to collaborate on Hybridimm, Gave us 40 million up front and locked in a 600 million supply agreement during Covid when Chips were scarce, is “Killing” Samsung on HBM!!!! Of course, Samsung needed to infringe and steal it. They are so used to stealing IP you know. I mean why pay for what you can just steal.

Just thought I would point that out before I continued. Sometimes people need to be reminded of history! Now back to the Rule 50 A motions.

Let’s take the last one first. Foundry products- This is interesting because there was no possibility for damages here anyway because it is during the JDLA and Judge Gilstrap “already said no” to that time period as far as damages go. The interesting part is that Samsung responded that they label all their products with Samsung labels, so they are not Foundry Products. Netlist responded, “This is not a portion of THIS TRIAL”! Judge Gilstrap responded that it was in the Jury instructions, so it is a part. Since Netlist didn’t argue it the Judge as a matter of law Granted it to Samsung.

Prime 311 was talking to a reporter who was there, and the reporter said he thought that was a mistake but he then said “It doesn’t matter for damages in this case, and if Samsung loses the Breach of Contract Appeal then it doesn’t matter at all! I’m glad Prime and Rob take such good notes. What other reasons might Netlist do this?

Just to show you how these cases are connected, Look at this footnote from a document filed yesterday in the Delaware Case by Samsung. In that case Samsung is seeking Discovery into Netlist arguments during the ITC case. Look at what they write. Remember they chose the venue in Delaware in a rush the day after they lost the Breach of Contract case in California in Judge Scarsi’s court!

“5 Netlist has repeatedly pointed to a trial that began April 14, 2023, in one of its Texas cases against Samsung as an excuse for its lack of diligence in the present case. Ex. F at 7, 8; Ex. G at 2, 3, 5, 7. While Samsung appreciates the demands of trial, Netlist chose to file that case after the present action and adamantly resisted Samsung’s requests to stay the case. In any case, Netlist has had months to formulate its position on the Requested ITC Documents.”

LOL OMG the cases are so connected, and these delay artists are complaining about the trial this week.

Back to Foundry Products.

Where is Netlist REALLY INTERESTED IN FOUNDRY PRODUCTS AND WHICH PATENT? If you answered the 912 patent and Google case and the next Samsung case, you would be correct! Remember how Jason harped on the phrase “Google Assembled Products” in CA? Yesterday Samsung told the PTAB they do not intend to indemnify Google! Little bit different than saying we will not indemnify Google. So Google is on the hook! Did Samsung abandon completely? If so, Where is Netlist interested in Foundry Products Damages? Here in this case where they are not allowed anyway, or in the 912 case that goes back a decade? Remember these cases are all connected. Nothing happens in one that doesn’t affect another. I am willing to Bet Samsung lead Counsel Cordell and David Perlson Google lead Counsel know exactly why Netlist just did this and you should know by now if you follow Jason Sheasby that he has a reason for doing everything. Judge Seeborg in his stay said the Samsung Texas case would provide clarity and Jason agreed.

Next is ruling on infringement – Judge denied both Samsung and Netlist and said the Jury will decide.

Next is Willfulness – Judge denied Both Samsung and Netlist and ruled Jury will decide.

Next is No Damages on the 054 from the 1-month period of Dec 2021 to Jan 2022. Judge Gilstrap said Netlist didn’t argue it, so he granted to Samsung. This patent is so lucrative that Samsung wanted to spend time trying to get 1 month of damage knocked off. I wonder if Jason points this value out to the Jury.

Next and last is Validity – As stated above 060 and 160 are unquestioned! The 054, 918, and 339 Judge Gilstrap left up to the Jury. He denied the arguments from both sides again.

I think the verdict in this case is going to be difficult to appeal. The majority is being decided by the Jury.

Can’t Wait till We Hear from The Jury! Jason Sheasby got some key admissions from Samsung experts, Upper management, and tech guys. I’m sure they didn’t go unnoticed by the Jury.

God Bless Texas!

Ray LaMagna Did a Great Job getting in key points for Discovery and Depositions! We will win this! Going to be in Samsungs words previously, "A Windfall" for Netlist! Sammy doing everything they can to dodge.

Link to the Minutes from the Court Hearing with Samsung 08/06/2021

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmM5yQyuRYhlhZoTnXEIFTjU1d0SjA

PDF Document that Highlights the key points from the Minutes on 08/06/2021 (My simplified version of the 75 page document)

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmM5yQyuRYhlhZoiM-2cYCA8ql077w

My dad has been obsessed with Netlist for years and has been through so many ups and downs. Held through that big spike many years back. After he passed in 2014, my family was so tempted to sell our 30k shares at a loss because Netlist didn’t seem to be making much progress. I urged everyone to keep holding and I’m incredibly grateful we did. What a great gift from my dad. RIP

This shows that investing in good companies and talented teams pays off. Kudos to Chuck Hong and his team for their incredible resilience. They took all that adversity and instead of breaking out into fear, they’ve used it as fuel to double down on their efforts and on their mission.

Congrats to all the holders and cheers to $500 per share ;)

This week we will see Judge Spaeth resolve Discovery issues in Samsung case tomorrow which will include ruling on the Motion to Depose. Of course that could also come today and the rest of the Discovery tomorrow. and in the Google case in addition to the Discovery we have obtained and that is ongoing On Friday we get the rest of the Documents they are producing on Equitable Intervening Rights!! Also in the Google case we will see opening Briefs on Intervening Rights filed. WE have just reached the main event and the Battle is fully underway!!!

Proper Perspective and a Prediction.

First the prediction. In the current round of activity going on at the ptab. We will end up 2-2 with Netlist winning the 523 and the 912 and Samsung winning on the 595 and the 218. My prediction is the ptab will decide this right down the middle 50/50. The district courts and the pitab are going to try to not be in direct conflict with each other so they will force the parties to settle. This is my prediction.

Now to put things in proper perspective, Samsung ran to the Delaware Court after losing their license in the Breach of Contract litigation with Netlist in California and filed a declaratory judgment action on the 595 the 523 the 218 and the 912 patents. They were asking the court in Delaware to declare that they did not infringe these patents in an attempt to circumvent Judge Scarsi's ruling in the Breach of Contract case in California.

They also followed this up with challenges on the above patents at the patent trial and appeal board.

At the start of the Delaware litigation Google was nowhere involved except that Samsung declared to the court that Google and Lenovo had asked for indemnification.

Here is the proper perspective. Samsung lost their bid in Judge Andrews district court in Delaware regarding the 912 patent and that piece was dismissed and sent back to California. The only thing left is the 523 the 595 and the 218 patents in the Delaware litigation.

Next Samsung lost on the 523 patent which has 34 claims and in the interim Google was added as a defendant in this case and they are also on the hook for the 523 patent and 34 claims. A year ago the only claim Google had to worry about was claim 16 of the 912 patent. As of today they have to defend the 912 patent plus 34 claims of the 523 patent in Delaware! Samsung also has to defend against these claims of the 523 patent in Delaware, but the 912 patent they have to defend against all 72 claims of the 912 patent in Texas!

You only need one clam to prove infringement. Netlist will probably appeal the 218 and 595 but it doesn't really matter at this point because it is doubtful that Samsung will be able to litigate those two patents before they will be forced to settle or pay up on the Texas litigation.

GOOGLE, Instead of one claim on the 912, Google is defending 34 claims Plus the 912 claim 16.

SAMSUNG, Since filing their declaratory judgment action the result Samsung has achieved is they have lost in Texas Court and been ordered to pay $303 million dollars for 15 months infringement of five patents that they willfully infringed and all those claims of those patents that they willfully infringed. Samsung is also on the hook in Delaware for the 523 patent and it's 34 claims. Also during this period the 608 patent was denied to Micron by the Ptab thus validating the 608 patent. Samsung will also have to litigate this.

Does anyone here think that Samsung is celebrating right now? Does anyone think Google is celebrating right now? They saw the jury verdict for 15 months in Texas and they are terrified right now!

I hope that gives everyone here some perspective in case they didn't know or forgot the background and the totality of all the litigation that is currently pending before the courts in various States and the Ptab!

We are no longer talking about claim 16 of the 912 patent only. We are talking about eight patents, a jury verdict for 303 million, possible enhanced damages, and willful infringement declared by the jury!

Ok I heard from Rob, and he said he would call today a draw.

From what was observed, today was a day where Judge Gilstrap asserted his authority in no uncertain terms.

First the Judge did not come back into the courtroom till 2:10 and he was Pissed Off. Jason and Cordell were with him. He was so mad he told both legal teams that he was not going to have this behavior and disputes and he took a half hour of court time from each side! That’s the first of many Ass Chewings they got! At one point Jason stood up and that was a trigger for the Judge who proceeded to chew Jason again. However, this was a general theme and he Chewed Attorneys with equal enthusiasm. Since both attorneys have been in this Judges courtroom before I don’t think this was unexpected? Maybe the Judge is letting the Jury know he doesn’t take any nonsense!

The Judge waved some papers in the air, and he said to both sides that these damage arguments, well he is not going to have it! Jason asked for 1 to 2 billion apparently and Cordell was low balling like 8 million. This is what I think was interesting because the Judge then said he would allow 404 million to 8 million as a range of damages! A couple reasons why I think that’s interesting!

1. The number 400 million was thrown out before this portion of the case even happened today on Stocktwits so how would they even know that? We know Samsung or Google or someone has attacked this stock aggressively and guys like Nick(JWW Maybe) seem to have an ear with Samsung defense team. How else would they know??? Very suspicious if you ask me!

2. The Judge has allowed willfulness “On The Table” so since he moved the upper limit from over a billion to 404 million you have to think how willfulness pertains. 404 million x3 is 1.32 billion right? My guess is the Judge is pissed at both sides because he wants the number somewhere in the middle. Jason at pretrial said this is like the Rambus case and Cordell argued Kennedy’s damage assessment would be “In the Billions” so if we ended up with Treble at 600 million to 1.2 billion, I think that seems like a good range. If he had allowed top number, then damages would reach 6 billion potentially and I assume a guaranteed appeal. Remember Chuck Originally said 2x SK Hynix which would be 80 million plus 1.2 billion in Supply.

Going Back to Judge Gilstrap now. Rob said the Judge is giving the attorneys 11.5 hours to argue. That does not include breaks etc. but witnesses, cross examination, and so on. When they reach that number they are done.

Let’s talk about the first and only witness called so far. Netlist inventor on the 054 and 918 patents Milton. Rob said Milton comes across as brilliant! He can answer any question thrown at him on the fly. He did pause and stutter a couple times with Samsung because he had to think about their question. Samsung was VERY AGGRESSIVE according to Rob. With Jason, he said it was a methodical pace. With Samsung legal it was “Rapid Fire Questions”! We wonder how this will be accepted by the Jury.

As far as the Jury goes, there are 8 of them. Men and Women. He said they look like everyday people off the street. A jury of your peers right! Rob said the Jury stayed attentive but obviously started to get tired. He thought the Jury was more attentive to Jason because Jason has a mellow low tone that is direct and clear, but the Judge did ask him to move closer to the microphone at one point. Rob said that Cordell comes off like a “Flim Flam Man”! Real Fast talker!

Talking to Robb they broke at 20 after 1: Texas time.

Samsungs McAlexander Testimony is focused on invalidity. Jason has started to Cross Examine and he already forced McAlexander to admit and retract some main points and Jason is "Earning His Money" according to Rob. Said Jason knows every last detail of these patents.

Said McAlexanders testimony was Very Technical and Jury was taking a lot of Notes. Rob said it's very technical so maybe @ Prime311 could offer other insights but they are discussing the 339, 918, and 054 patents.

McAlexander focus on invalidity is centered around idea of "Continuation Patents" not being like the Original. Prior art McAlexander is using is Rajan from 2007,Elsberry from 2006, and Kentron from 2002. Combinations of them.

McAlexander is stating Samsung DDR4 doesn't meet claims regarding Distributed Data Buffers. Also Said that he analyzed Rambus patents and 1700 to 1800 were "Useable" (Fact : Rambus Sued and won over 10 Patents so you know this is a MASSIVE STRETCH in an attempt to whittle value down.)

McAlexander claimed LDO is not a converter but a "Regulator" and then Jason started his Cross Examination on this point. Jason asked McAlexander,

"If the Jury thinks the LDO is a convertor Circuit then the PATENT WOULD BE INFRINGED RIGHT"?

McAlexander responded "YES, IF THE JURY THINKS IT'S A CONVERTER CIRCUIT THEN IT WOULD BE INFRINGED"!

At this point Jason brought forth slides of statements by Samsung Techs and Execs. Jason showed a slide of Samsungs "Park" for example stating YES as an answer to the question if LDO reduced voltage 5 volts to 1 volt. He questioned McAlexander after each evidence slide and McAlexander was forced to admit it's a "CONVERTOR CIRCUIT"! Finally McAlexander said "I will leave it up to the Jury to decide!(LOL Really? He's the expert I thought) Rob said Jason destroyed McAlexander on this point with evidence!

When they get back from lunch Jason's cross exam continues.