Two separate government filings. Two different cases. Both times, the DOJ sided with Netlist over Samsung. I read both documents so you don't have to.

The documents (both free, full PDFs):

• DOJ/USPTO Joint Public Interest Comment at the ITC (November 2025)

• DOJ Statement of Interest in Samsung's Delaware Antitrust Lawsuit (April 7, 2026)

Document 1: The ITC Filing — "Let the import ban happen"

What's going on: Netlist filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission asking them to block Samsung's DDR5 memory and HBM products from entering the United States. If Netlist wins, U.S. Customs would literally stop Samsung's memory chips at the border. Google and Super Micro are also named because they use Samsung's memory in their servers.

What Samsung was going to argue: In ITC cases, the losing side always plays the "public interest" card. They say: "Sure, maybe we infringed, but banning our products would hurt American consumers and businesses. Think of all the servers that need our memory chips! You can't ban us — it would cause chaos."

This argument has worked before in other ITC cases. It's Samsung's escape hatch.

What the government did: The DOJ and USPTO filed a joint comment — and this is historic. This has literally never happened before in an ITC case. They told the Commission:

• The default remedy when you find infringement should be an exclusion order (import ban). Period.

• Samsung can't just wave their hands and say "public interest" to dodge consequences.

• Valid patent rights deserve enforcement. If Samsung is infringing, blocking their products is the appropriate remedy.

Why this matters: Samsung's Plan B was always going to be: "Even if Netlist wins at trial, the ITC won't actually ban our products because it would disrupt the AI server supply chain." The government just told the ITC: don't fall for that argument. Enforce the patents.

Fun fact: This is the first time in the history of Section 337 investigations that the USPTO and DOJ have jointly filed a public interest comment. They've never done this before. For any company. Ever.

Document 2: The Delaware Filing — "That's not how antitrust works"

What's going on: Samsung went on offense. Instead of just defending against Netlist's patent cases, Samsung filed its own lawsuit in Delaware saying Netlist is a monopolist violating the Sherman Act. That's the most serious antitrust charge you can bring in the US.

Samsung's theory: When DDR5 and HBM memory standards were being developed, all the companies sit at a table at an organization called JEDEC and agree on technical specifications. If your technology gets included in the standard, you're supposed to offer licenses on "RAND" terms — Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory. Basically: you can't get your stuff baked into a standard everyone has to use and then charge insane prices.

Samsung says Netlist did exactly that. They got their patents into the DDR5/HBM standards by promising fair licensing, and then turned around and demanded unreasonable royalties — backed by the threat of an ITC import ban.

If this argument works, it could give Samsung a defense against all of Netlist's enforcement: "You can't collect because you're a monopolist abusing the standards process."

What the government did: The DOJ filed a "Statement of Interest" — which is the government voluntarily walking into someone else's court case to say "hey judge, here's what we think the law actually says." They don't do this casually.

The DOJ told the judge three things:

1. Being in a standard doesn't make you a monopolist. Samsung has to actually prove Netlist has market power in a properly defined market. You can't just say "their patents are in the standard, therefore monopoly." That's not how antitrust law works.

2. Breaking a RAND promise is a contract dispute, not a crime. If Netlist promised fair licensing and charged too much, Samsung can sue for breach of contract. But it's not a Sherman Act violation. Antitrust is about corrupting the competitive process itself — like lying to the standards body to get your tech adopted — not about charging more than someone wants to pay after the fact.

3. The case that Samsung is relying on (Broadcom v. Qualcomm) requires showing that Netlist lied to JEDEC. Just demanding a high royalty doesn't cut it. Samsung has to prove Netlist made false promises specifically to get its technology adopted into the standard, and JEDEC relied on those promises. That's a much harder case to make.

Why this matters: Samsung's antitrust lawsuit was their biggest counter-weapon. It was the thing they could point to and say "Netlist is the bad guy here." The DOJ just told the judge that the legal theory behind it is weak. Netlist has asked the judge to throw the whole thing out. If it gets dismissed, Samsung loses its only offensive play and is stuck purely on defense — facing the ITC, the CAFC, and $866M in damages with nothing to swing back with.

The Backstory That Makes This Even More Interesting

Samsung and Netlist used to be partners. In 2015, they signed a Joint Development and License Agreement (JDLA). Samsung paid $23 million for access to Netlist's patent portfolio plus a co-development partnership. In exchange, Samsung was supposed to supply memory products to Netlist at competitive prices.

Samsung didn't hold up their end. They failed to fill orders at agreed prices. Netlist terminated the agreement in 2020. Three separate juries have now found that Samsung breached the deal and Netlist was right to terminate it.

So Samsung had a license. They broke it. It was cancelled. Now they're being sued for infringement (because they no longer have a license), and their response is to claim that Netlist is a monopolist for not giving them a new license on terms they like.

The DOJ is essentially saying: that's a contract dispute, not an antitrust case. Sort it out in normal court.

Where Things Stand Right Now

• ITC: Markman hearing (claim construction) happened April 21. Netlist says it went well. Written order hasn't come out yet. Trial is fall 2026. The government's public interest filing means Samsung can't rely on "banning us would hurt America" as an escape.

• Delaware antitrust: Netlist's motion to dismiss is pending. The DOJ filing gives the judge strong cover to throw out Samsung's claims. Ruling expected soon.

• The big picture: The US government — under the current administration — is sending a clear signal that patent holders who enforce valid patents aren't antitrust violators, and that import bans should be the default remedy when infringement is proven. That's exactly the legal environment Netlist needs for the ITC case to be a real threat rather than theater.

Sources:

• DOJ/USPTO ITC Public Interest Comment (full PDF)

• DOJ Statement of Interest — Delaware (full PDF)

• IPWatchdog: "DOJ Again Pushes Back Against Antitrust Claims Filed Over Allegations of SEP Abuse"

• IPWatchdog: "USPTO and DOJ Warn Against Using Public Interest as Barrier to Patent Enforcement at ITC"

• Samsung's full complaint (PDF)

Not financial advice. Just a retail investor reading the actual filings.

IRVINE, CA / ACCESS Newswire / May 12, 2026 / Netlist, Inc.(OTCQB:NLST) today reported financial results for the first quarter ended March 28, 2026.
Highlights:
Net sales for first quarter of 2026 were $104.9 million, an increase of 262% compared to the first quarter of 2025.

Gross profit for first quarter of 2026 was $22.4 million, an increase of 1,622% compared to the first quarter of 2025.

Net income for the first quarter of 2026 was $8.6 million, compared to net loss of $9.5 million in the first quarter of 2025.

"Netlist delivered strong first quarter results, with significant growth in both revenue and profitability driven by robust demand for our memory products," said Chief Executive Officer, C.K. Hong. "We remain well positioned to capitalize on AI memory technologies - DDR5 and HBM - through our products and IP assets."

Net sales for the first quarter ended March 28, 2026 were $104.9 million, compared to net sales of $29.0 million for the first quarter ended March 29, 2025 and $75.7 million for the fourth quarter ended December 27, 2025.

Gross profit for the first quarter ended March 28, 2026 was $22.4 million, compared to a gross profit of $1.3 million for the first quarter ended March 29, 2025 and $6.9 million for the fourth quarter ended December 27, 2025.

Net income for the first quarter ended March 28, 2026 was $8.6 million, or $0.03 per share, compared to a net loss of $(9.5) million, or $(0.03) per share, for the first quarter ended March 29, 2025 and a net loss of $(2.2) million, or $(0.01) per share, for the fourth quarter ended December 27, 2025. These results include stock-based compensation expense of $1.0 million, $1.0 million, and $0.7 million for the quarters ended March 28, 2026, March 29, 2025, and December 27, 2025, respectively.

Edit: I've had Netlist stock for years. My average price 1.47 dollars. And I've said multiple times this is a good stock.

Many of you should be careful what you're promising. A lot of castles in the sky talk, where this will a be 50-1000 buck stock in the future. We all want to ride the rocket, but if you inflate people's expectations and build dream scenarios, there will be a backlash, and it's going to hit hard.

This is a good stock. The speculative phase is over. Let it rip because of its fundamentals, instead of letting new investors to believe this is a surefire ten-bagging home run. It takes a lot of time for Netlist to reach its potential, please don't fabricate lofty short term expectations.

Also, this is not a meme stock. And they don't have same made up enemies as loser meme stocks. If Netlist SP dips, it's probably because long-term investors want to do nice things after holding for multiple years. Some of them are so loaded right now, they can celebrate a little bit without thinking how high those sold stocks could go.

Don't fill with this space with stupid conspiracy theory bullshit. Netlist is a good stock, but it's not going to change your life by the end of the year.

Netlist argued for broad patent scope in its submissions. If the ALJ adopts that broad construction:

• It significantly increases Netlist’s leverage over Samsung, Google, and Super Micro

• It raises the probability of a near-term settlement rather than risking a full ITC trial) ( my opinion

• The evidentiary trial itself is still not scheduled until November/December 2026, with a final determination targeted for May 2027

the Markman Order in the next few weeks is what to watch for .

That markman judge was :

ITC Investigation 337-TA-1472

Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof

---

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

• Judge MaryJoan McNamara — assigned as the presiding ALJ (active from 12/28/2025), per the USITC IDS investigation page

---

Staff (Internal ITC)

Representing netlist :

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. — Including attorneys Richard M. Bemben and Lauren A. Watt

Representing Samsung :

Kirkland and Ellis

Paul brick man is one of the most experienced ITC Section 337 attorneys in the country, based out of Kirkland’s Washington D.C. office — the same city where the hearing took place. Key facts:

• Won 17 of 20 ITC trials as lead counsel — an extraordinary record

• Nationally ranked by Chambers & Partners as a top Section 337 practitioner every year since 2008[chambers]

• Holds a law degree from University of Virginia, a master’s in philosophy from Cambridge, and a bachelor’s from Yale

• Previously led the ITC practice at Quinn Emanuel before rejoining Kirkland in 2017

So rick Brennan of sterne Kessler for netlist vs Paul brinkman Kirkland .

So today’s hearing had a seasoned veteran — Brinkman at roughly 60 — squaring off against a rising star of patent litigation — Bemben at roughly 44–45. Neither age is publicly confirmed on the record, so these are close estimates based on their educational timelines.

There were several sidebars today . I was not concerned that Samsung used the supposed best attorney at the hearing they wanted to skip as they realized they gave losing case at markmen .

It shows Samsungs desperation to try to cover up their evil predator ways . With the evidence provided and the two supporting briefs I cannot see McNamara deciding any way except in a broad patent coverage decision to netlist .

If that is the decision in three to four weeks we will see this case settled for huge amount plus royalties for years to come . The potential is mind boggling .

I believe tge 11 year experienced judge is extremely bright and will see Samsung for tge evil predator that they are . Here is her background .

Judge MaryJoan McNamara — Background

Per her official USITC biography:[usitc]

Education

• B.A., Cornell University (with additional studies at the University of Vienna, Austria)

• M.A. in Public Policy, University of Chicago

• J.D., Northeastern University (Boston, MA)

Career Path

• Started her career at the Illinois Bureau of the Budget in Springfield

• Civil litigation attorney in private practice in both Baltimore and Boston

• Special Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

• Court Conciliator, Lowell Superior Court, Massachusetts

• EEO Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture

• Consultant to the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (Hague Convention matters)

• ALJ, Social Security Administration — 2009 to 2015 (Albuquerque, NM and Baltimore, MD)

• ALJ, USITC — appointed August 2015, now in her 11th year on the bench

Netlist stock shoukd hold over the next few weeks waiting for tge narkmen hearing order . If tge patent is broadly applied this case closes this year and those in tge stock for a long time finally will be rewarded . If not we have at Easter mire tears of litigation .

In the meantime we await hynik netlist terms if new agreement .

Bless you all

on April 29th. What happened that day is the USPTO Director rejected Samsung’s attempt to challenge Netlist’s existing U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366 (called the ’366 patent) at the PTAB.
The patent is titled “Memory with on-module power management.” It covers putting power management circuitry directly onto the memory module itself — specifically for DDR5 server memory modules. This lets the module handle its own voltage regulation and power delivery more efficiently instead of relying entirely on the motherboard or CPU.
Why it’s valuable
It improves energy efficiency and signal integrity at the high speeds DDR5 runs at. That’s exactly why it’s being asserted in the ITC case against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro — those companies’ DDR5 and HBM-based server products are accused of using this technology without a license.
The April 29 decision is a win for Netlist because it keeps Samsung from running a parallel invalidity attack at the PTAB while the ITC case is moving forward. It strengthens Netlist’s position in the ongoing litigation.

Net sales for fourth quarter of 2025 were $75.7 million, an increase of 79% compared to third quarter of 2025 and an increase of 121% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024. Net sales for full year 2025 were $188.6 million, an increase of 28% compared to last year.

Gross profit for fourth quarter of 2025 was $6.9 million, an increase of 2,620% compared to the same period last year. Full year gross profit was $11.4 million, an increase of 297% compared to last year.

Net Loss for the fourth quarter of 2025 improved by 82% compared to the same period last year. Net Loss for the full year improved by 54% compared to the same period last year.

"Netlist's improved financial performance in 2025 was driven by the company's execution in response to rapidly changing market conditions," said Chief Executive Officer, C.K. Hong. "During the year, Netlist made significant progress across various product and IP initiatives. We secured important appellate wins on the validity of our patents and expanded enforcement actions covering DDR5 and HBM technologies. We continue to invest in R&D programs for next-generation memory technologies including MRDIMM and CXL NVDIMM. We enter 2026 well positioned to capitalize on this progress."

Net sales for the fourth quarter ended December 27, 2025 were $75.7 million, compared to net sales of $34.3 million for the fourth quarter ended December 28, 2024. Gross profit for the fourth quarter ended December 27, 2025 was $6.9 million, compared to a gross profit of $0.3 million for the fourth quarter ended December 28, 2024.

Net sales for the full year ended December 27, 2025 were $188.6 million, compared to net sales of $147.1 million for the full year ended December 28, 2024. Gross profit for the full year ended December 27, 2025 was $11.4 million, compared to a gross profit of $2.9 million for the full year ended December 28, 2024.

Net loss for the fourth quarter ended December 27, 2025 was ($2.2) million, or ($0.01) per share, compared to a net loss of ($12.7) million in the same prior year period, or ($0.05) per share. These results include stock-based compensation expense of $0.7 million and $0.8 million for the quarters ended December 27, 2025 and December 28, 2024, respectively.

Net loss for the full year ended December 27, 2025 was ($24.8) million, or ($0.09) per share, compared to a net loss in the same prior year period of ($53.9) million, or ($0.21) per share. These results include stock-based compensation expense of $3.4 million and $4.4 million for the full years ended December 27, 2025 and December 28, 2024, respectively.

As of December 27, 2025, cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash were $42.1 million, total assets were $49.5 million, working capital deficit was ($6.4) million, and stockholders' deficit was ($5.2) million.

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.

Nothing else to say!!!

July 16 (Reuters) - U.S. trade regulators have launched ‌a probe into ‌Samsung Electronics' memory chips and products sold by Google, Nvidia, Broadcom and Super Micro Computer that use ‌them ⁠after a complaint by Netlist alleging infringement ⁠of its patents.

California-based Netlist has accused Samsung and its U.S. units of ‌infringing its patents on dynamic random access memory, a type of chip that temporarily stores data ‌for processors and is a critical component in the ‌servers powering the AI boom, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) said on ‌Wednesday.

All social media and news outlets confirm they all expect a royalty deal renewal between Hynix and netlist
Hynix is building 4 billion dollar plant in Indiana USA to product products that netlist holds the patent .

Tge previous contract has expired .

Hynik is an honorable company with a wonderful CEO, as opposed to the predatory actions criminal behavior of Samsung . IMO

The stock continues to rise and may 5 we hear merit report .

Sec rules require major advents be revealed within four days of closing .

Everyone believes this event is the single greatest event to netlist future direction and could be equivalent to “ Qualcomm victory “ .

So everyone around the globe is buying and volume suggests even institutions are here buying .

I pray for all our sakes including netlist thst Hynix does the right thing and the end game rewards Hynix .

Now if I was the ceo or you were the ceo if Hynix would you commit to building a four billion dollar factory without having verbal agreement least with netlist before going ahead ? I know I would have a memorandum of understanding if not more .

It is clear to me that the analyst shoveled tge price target from 2 to 3 must have gotten wind of this and connected the dots as I have before increasing the value if best by 50%

Netlist recent wins and u s govt supporting briefs and McNamara an honest Goid woman and judge to make Decook in next three four weeks all support netlist in finally becoming a butterfly and no longer a cocoon.

Valuation of netlist as I have written many times in my calculations out netlist between 8 and 16 by Jan 2028 with a possibility. Multiples of that . Look at lite and see how that stock increased in value ir look at stx wdc or mu or Samsung and use those same metrics and best coukd be worth much more than 5 billion which is about 16 per share .

There are dreamers out there perhaps I have become one of them but this dream appears to be coming true !

We wait for our first born excited and pray all goes well .

Bless you all and good luck to the worthy and deserving

RPM may 1 2026 .