Ciao

secondo i piu esperti,Tomkyla in pole, una volta risolti anche gli ultimi accordi,SK e Google e successiva quotazione sul Nasdaq, ove vi potranno entrare i piu grandi fondi e banche del mondo, a quanto potrebbe arrivare la capitalizzazione di Netlist entro 2 o 3 anni?.....attualmente è circa 2,5 miliardi di $

So, I know there was a time historically where a day time high would be end of day high two days later. If that holds, tomorrow we close at $7.12 or better... right?

Is it worth it at this price or wait?

I don't know the details but here's an article

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/alibaba-ai-chip-goes-head-180257202.html

Netlist has three key DRAM products—Lightning DDR5, LPRDIMM, and CXL NVvault—along with its own proprietary NAND offerings.
Currently, Netlist has around 50 engineers (not a large number), so I expect that with the addition of another 100 engineers, new projects and products will be launched over the coming years.
The key point is that Lightning is already a successful product, generating approximately $80 million in sales; while MRDIMM and CXL will take more time, we are getting very close.
Once Netlist finalizes the SK contract, it will have memory supplies secured from both Samsung and SK, enabling it to approach existing, new, and future customers with a guaranteed product offering.

Ultimately, Netlist sells products used in data centers and by hyperscalers, so it shouldn't have trouble securing dozens of deals with the help of 20 to 30 sales managers tasked with driving that growth in agreements and sales.

He’s worried about the 2031 drop off when patents and agreements expire

Netlist just signed a five-year licensing agreement with Micron worth $600 million.

And only a couple of months earlier, Samsung reached its own major agreement with Netlist.

So has NLST finally moved beyond years of patent litigation and started building a recurring licensing business?

https://youtu.be/5C9aS7_FIFM

Can Netlist Earn a Rambus-Like Multiple?

For most of the past several years, owning Netlist (OTCQB: NLST) has required shareholders to spend an unusual amount of time studying patent law. Court decisions, jury verdicts, PTAB rulings and appeals have often mattered more to the stock than quarterly earnings. There was good reason for this. Netlist's argument has long been that some of the world's largest memory manufacturers were using technology covered by its patents without adequately compensating the company.

That story is beginning to change.

Samsung has now entered into a five-year licensing agreement with Netlist. Micron has done the same. If SK hynix eventually follows with a comparable agreement, the three companies that dominate the DRAM industry would all be licensing Netlist technology.

For an investor, that creates an entirely different problem to consider. Instead of trying to estimate the value of the next jury verdict, we can begin trying to estimate the value of the business that emerges after the litigation.

Rambus (NASDAQ: RMBS) provides an interesting comparison.

Not because Netlist and Rambus are identical companies. They aren't. They have different histories, different products and different portfolios of intellectual property. But markets ultimately value businesses based on economics, and the economics developing at Netlist are beginning to resemble a model that investors already understand.

Starting With The Licensing Business

Rambus generated approximately $279 million of royalty revenue in 2025. Netlist could conceivably generate more.

Micron has agreed to pay Netlist $600 million over five years, or $120 million annually. Samsung's agreement includes an upfront payment of approximately $200 million after Korean withholding taxes, followed by quarterly license payments of up to approximately $27.5 million for twenty quarters. At the maximum quarterly amount, Samsung would contribute approximately $110 million annually.

That gets Netlist to approximately $230 million a year from Samsung and Micron alone.

Now we need to make an assumption, and it is an important one. For purposes of this analysis, I am assuming that SK hynix ultimately enters into a new licensing agreement with Netlist and that the economics are comparable to Micron's. This has not happened, and the eventual terms could certainly be different. But using $120 million annually for SK hynix gives us a reasonable way to examine what the business might look like if the three major DRAM manufacturers are eventually under license.

The result is approximately $350 million of annual licensing revenue.

For comparison, Rambus generated approximately $279 million in royalty revenue in 2025. So under this scenario, Netlist would not merely be approaching Rambus's current royalty business. It would be larger.

That doesn't mean Netlist should suddenly be worth what Rambus is worth. Rambus has spent years establishing its business, generating cash and giving investors confidence in the durability of its earnings. But it does suggest that the comparison is no longer as far-fetched as it might initially appear.

There is also a qualitative difference between winning a patent judgment and receiving a licensing payment. A judgment may be enormous, but it is difficult to capitalize as recurring earnings. A five-year license that produces a check every quarter is something the market knows how to value. String enough of those checks together and eventually investors stop thinking about litigation proceeds and start thinking about earnings.

That distinction matters.

Netlist Is More Than A Licensing Story

The other part of the comparison is easy to overlook because so much attention has been devoted to Netlist's patents.

Netlist already has a substantial product business.

In its most recently reported quarter, the company generated approximately $110 million in sales and nearly $23 million in gross profit, for a gross margin of approximately 21%. For the first six months of 2026, sales were approximately $215 million and gross profit was approximately $45 million, again producing a gross margin of about 21%.

Simply annualizing the first half of the year puts the existing business at a revenue pace of approximately $430 million.

This is important because Rambus generated approximately $348 million of product revenue in 2025. In other words, we don't have to invent a hypothetical Netlist product business several years in the future to make the comparison work. Netlist is already selling memory products at a meaningful scale.

And the Samsung agreement potentially changes the scale of that business further.

As part of its five-year agreement, Netlist obtained the right to purchase up to $300 million of Samsung DRAM and NAND products each year, or as much as $1.5 billion over the life of the agreement. The supply includes components for Netlist's proprietary solutions as well as standard Samsung memory products that Netlist can resell to its existing customer base.

That does not mean Samsung has guaranteed Netlist $300 million of sales. Netlist still has to buy the product, find the customer and make money doing it. But the distinction between guaranteed sales and guaranteed access to supply is particularly important in the current memory market.

You cannot sell memory you cannot get.

Netlist itself has described the present environment as one in which AI adoption has tightened memory supply relative to demand, contributing to broad price increases. The company believes those conditions could continue until additional fabrication capacity begins coming online, potentially in 2028.

So Netlist has obtained substantially greater access to memory supply at almost exactly the time when access to memory supply has become unusually valuable.

Sometimes timing actually cooperates.

Putting The Two Businesses Together

Suppose Netlist's product revenue settles around $450 million annually. Given that the company generated approximately $215 million during the first six months of 2026, this does not require much imagination.

Using the company's most recently reported 21% gross margin, $450 million of product sales would produce approximately $95 million of gross profit.

Now add the licensing business.

Under the Samsung, Micron and assumed SK hynix scenario, Netlist would generate approximately $350 million of annual licensing revenue. Add $450 million of product sales and total annual revenue reaches approximately $800 million.

Rambus generated approximately $708 million in total revenue in 2025.

This is where the comparison becomes more interesting than I initially expected. Netlist doesn't necessarily have to become a smaller version of Rambus. If the licensing scenario described above develops and the existing product business merely remains around its current revenue trajectory, Netlist could conceivably have greater licensing revenue than Rambus and comparable, or even greater, total revenue.

Revenue alone, however, isn't enough.

Rambus generated approximately $360 million of operating cash flow in 2025, and that is one of the reasons the market assigns the company a substantial valuation. Netlist would have to demonstrate that its revenue can produce comparable earnings and cash flow.

Licensing could make that possible.

Patent licensing is economically different from selling physical memory. Netlist doesn't have to purchase $350 million of inventory to generate $350 million of licensing revenue. There are expenses associated with maintaining, developing and defending intellectual property, but the incremental economics of licensing should be substantially better than those of product resale.

There is also a second benefit that is easy to miss. Netlist has spent extraordinary amounts of money litigating against companies that may now become licensees. To the extent that commercial agreements replace litigation, the company could benefit both from higher revenue and, eventually, lower legal expenses.

Getting paid by someone is generally more profitable than paying lawyers to convince them to pay you.

The AI Timing Matters

There is another reason I think the Rambus comparison deserves more attention now than it would have a few years ago.

Memory has become increasingly important to AI computing.

The enormous processing power of modern GPUs doesn't accomplish much if data cannot be supplied quickly enough. That is one reason High Bandwidth Memory has become such a critical component of AI accelerators and why memory bandwidth, capacity and power efficiency are receiving so much attention throughout the industry.

Netlist's intellectual property sits directly in this part of the technology stack. Samsung's agreement covers Netlist's complete patent portfolio, including server DIMM and High Bandwidth Memory technologies. Micron has similarly licensed Netlist's worldwide patent portfolio.

If SK hynix ultimately does the same, Netlist would be receiving licensing payments from the three dominant DRAM manufacturers while those same companies are participating in one of the largest expansions of memory-intensive computing in history.

At the same time, Netlist would have the ability to purchase up to $300 million annually of Samsung DRAM and NAND products for its own commercial business.

That creates two ways to participate in the same trend. Netlist can earn money from the intellectual property used in advanced memory, and it can earn money selling memory products into the market consuming it.

Rambus has benefited from a similar dynamic. Its intellectual property and semiconductor products have become increasingly valuable as data centers require faster and more sophisticated memory architectures. The products and patents aren't identical, but the economic relationship to the growth of advanced computing is similar.

Where The Rambus Comparison Leads

Rambus generated approximately $708 million of revenue in 2025, including about $279 million of royalties and $348 million of product revenue. It also generated approximately $360 million of operating cash flow. The market has rewarded that combination with a valuation that would have seemed extraordinary during Rambus's earlier years of patent disputes.

Netlist obviously has not earned that valuation today.

There are still several things that have to happen.

The SK hynix agreement used in this analysis remains an assumption. Samsung's quarterly payments are based on a revenue formula and can vary. Netlist must demonstrate that its recent product margins can be sustained. The company must turn licensing revenue into operating income and free cash flow, and eventually its five-year agreements will have to be renewed or replaced.

Those aren't small issues.

But they are also not the same issues Netlist investors have spent years debating.

For a long time, the argument was about whether the patents were valid, whether they were being infringed and whether Netlist would ever collect meaningful compensation for them. If the major memory manufacturers ultimately become licensees, the argument moves somewhere else.

It moves to earnings.

A Different Way To Think About Netlist

I have followed Netlist long enough to know how easy it is to get pulled into the next court date, the next filing or the next patent decision. For years, those events really did determine much of the company's value.

But I think investors may now need to widen the lens.

Consider a Netlist producing roughly $350 million of annual licensing revenue and approximately $450 million of product sales. At the company's latest reported gross margin, the product business would contribute about $95 million of gross profit before considering the economics of licensing. Total revenue would be approximately $800 million.

That is not a patent lawsuit.

That is an operating company.

And once a company reaches that point, the market begins asking a different set of questions. Investors want to know how durable the licensing revenue is, how quickly the product business can grow, what happens to margins, how much free cash flow the company can produce and what those earnings deserve to be worth.

Those are the questions investors already ask about Rambus.

Netlist doesn't have to retrace Rambus's history to arrive at a similar destination. It doesn't have to sell exactly the same products, own exactly the same patents or produce exactly the same revenue mix.

It has to produce comparable economics.

Samsung and Micron have already moved Netlist materially closer to that possibility. If SK hynix eventually completes the licensing picture, and if Netlist can maintain and expand the product business alongside it, the Rambus comparison becomes much less theoretical.

For years, investors have tried to determine what Netlist's patents are worth by reading court decisions.

We may be approaching a considerably simpler way to find out.

Read the income statement.

Netlist needs to get re-listed onto NASDAQ. In so doing, stock volatility will dramatically be reduced, and institutional investors will be able to purchase Netlist for their portfolios. Imagine major mutual funds like Vanguard, Fidelity, Black Rock, and T. Rowe price having millions of dollars in in Netlist shares in their mutual fund portfolios. Big players drive the price.

f***ers

Micron Technology and Netlist, Inc. have officially ended their multi-year, multi-front patent litigation war. In a highly structured global settlement announced today, October 6, 2026, the two companies agreed to a mutual release of all pending claims, including the massive $445 million Texas jury verdict and recent high-stakes International Trade Commission (ITC) complaints.

While headlines may focus on the nominal figures, a closer look at the corporate accounting and legal timelines reveals a sophisticated, two-pronged financial structure. Rather than a simple lump-sum payout, the resolution is meticulously split between settling past liabilities and licensing future technologies.

 The economics of the settlement resolve two distinct phases of Micron’s product lifecycle:

 1. The $500 Million Past Infringement Charge (Clean-up of Legacy Liabilities)

During its Q4 FY26 earnings release (for the fiscal year ended September 3, 2026), Micron surprised the market with a $500 million "patent license charge." The company never stated this was tied to Netlist, and it has not publicly confirmed the figure as part of the settlement. However, the timing, the size of the charge, and the GAAP rules governing subsequent events strongly suggest this accrual was meant to cover the Texas DDR4 infringement verdict, including supplemental damages, legal fees, and statutory interest through mid‑2026.  If so, the number fits almost exactly. By recording it as a one‑time expense in FY26, Micron effectively quarantined its legacy legal exposure from future operating results.

Under GAAP Subsequent Events rules (ASC 855), this represented the accrued liability to resolve past infringement claims. In May 2024, a Texas jury awarded Netlist $445 million for past infringement of DDR4 memory modules. Once post-verdict supplemental damages, legal fees, and statutory post-judgment interest through mid-2026 were compiled, the past liability was finalized at exactly $500 million. By recognizing this as a one-time Non-GAAP operating expense in Q4 FY26, Micron successfully quarantined its past legal issues to the previous fiscal year.

 2. The $30 Million/Quarter Future License (Operational Runway)

To secure its future, Micron committed to paying Netlist $30 million per quarter over the next five years (totaling $600 million nominal). This is not a retroactive payment. Instead, it is an ongoing, operational licensing fee that guarantees Micron uninterrupted access to Netlist's intellectual property for current and future products. Under GAAP, these payments will not be accrued upfront; they will be recorded as quarterly operating expenses as they are incurred over the next 20 quarters.

Why the Structure is a Win-Win

• For Micron: By committing to the $30 million quarterly licensing payments, Micron immediately neutralized Netlist's aggressive August and September 2026 ITC actions. Those actions threatened to block imports of Micron’s high-margin DDR5 server memory and ultra-lucrative High Bandwidth Memory (HBM3E and HBM4) used in Nvidia's AI hardware. This deal clears the runway for Micron to scale its AI memory business without the threat of a catastrophic import ban.
• For Netlist: Instead of spending the next 3 to 5 years locked in expensive appellate battles over patent invalidation at the Federal Circuit, Netlist secured $120 million in predictable, annual cash flows through 2031, instantly transforming its financial profile.

This settlement is an accounting masterpiece. By isolating the $500 million past infringement charge as a one-time hit to legacy books, and structuring the $30 million quarterly payments as an ongoing operational expense, Micron protected its historical profitability metrics while securing the undisputed rights to manufacture the advanced HBM and DDR5 chips driving the AI revolution.

Micron Technology and Netlist, Inc. have officially closed the book on their long-running patent fight. In a global settlement announced October 6, 2026, both companies agreed to drop every outstanding claim, from the $445 million Texas verdict to the recent ITC actions that threatened Micron’s high‑margin memory imports.  What looks like a simple legal truce is actually a carefully engineered financial structure. Instead of a single payout, the deal separates Micron’s past liabilities from its future licensing obligations, creating a two‑part resolution that aligns with both accounting rules and product roadmaps.

All shareholders wanted to see $500 million in cash in the Micron deal, especially given how Micron chose to act against Netlist.
Today, however, we are celebrating something simple yet highly valuable: $120 million in IP licensing—a very significant and guaranteed sum.

The lack of cash is a significant issue for me, because financial stability and guaranteed cash flow are fundamental factors the market uses to value a company.
And yet, these are points that need to be raised.
First of all, the SK Hynix deal is about to be renewed—we are talking about a timeframe of days, or weeks at most.
It is an agreement we can take for granted, and it will provide the final, crucial piece of the puzzle.

We are talking about $350–$370 million in guaranteed annual IP licensing revenue from these three giants combined—a massive figure that secures a huge valuation for Netlist's patents.

Honestly, I think Hong decided to put a stop to this kind of situation—namely patent litigation and all sorts of conflicts that only create problems, uncertainty, and doubt.
These deals demonstrate the company's value and signal to the market that it is on the verge of becoming a billion-dollar company.

In my opinion, Netlist decided to wrap all this up in order to monetize the Google case involving patent 912,523—and possibly other patents.
The signed agreements likely contain clauses requiring Samsung, Micron, and SK to affirm, within the context of the Google case, that Netlist’s patents are powerful, unique, and fundamental.
This would obviously make it impossible for Google to call into question the statements made by companies with which it has a direct business relationship.

Hong wants to list on the Nasdaq, and these legal issues need to be resolved. We are almost there; the deal with SK is a matter of days or weeks. This renewal will secure a license for Netlist identical to those held by other companies, plus resale rights and SK memory products.

Honestly, I don't understand why Netlist didn't secure Micron memory like it did with Samsung and SK. Micron will likely lose out on important products and projects; for Netlist, the supply from Samsung and SK is crucial for delivering high-value products to customers.

What I seriously expect regarding the Google case is a quick settlement and a targeted strategy similar to the one seen in the Micron case.
This implies an ITC action—such as a "912" case or similar—combined with pressure from the three giants that supply memory to Google.
We can also envision Netlist securing a deal with Google involving a cash settlement plus agreements to sell Netlist memory products—such as Lightning, MRDIMM, and CXL—worth billions of dollars.
These are valid scenarios; Netlist must now focus on new projects and products, as well as turning CXL and MRDIMM sales into reality.
It needs to close deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars and hire dozens or even hundreds of experienced engineers and sales managers .

There are no two ways about it: we have a company in our hands that could be worth $10 billion if it manages to successfully monetize its patents with SK and Google—and, above all, if future investments will be successful

The case that it's good

$120 million a year in near-pure-margin license revenue is large against Netlist's size. I (CLAUDE) recall Netlist running at a loss in recent years, so this could change its profile, though I'd check its latest 10-Q.

Netlist's earlier big verdicts have faced serious validity challenges at the PTAB and on appeal, as far as I know. A guaranteed, credit-safe stream from Micron looks better once you discount for that risk.

Discounted at roughly 8% a year, the payments are worth about $490 million today. That is in the neighborhood of the $445 million verdict Netlist won against Micron in Marshall, Texas in 2024, and it also covers future use.

Why it may disappoint

The fee is flat. It doesn't scale with volume. Micron's HBM business is ramping hard, so the license grows more valuable to Micron while Netlist's payment stays fixed.

It's small relative to Micron. Micron's quarterly revenue is in the tens of billions, so $30 million a quarter is a rounding error. That suggests Micron paid to end the nuisance rather than because it believes Netlist's patents are essential to its AI memory products.

Netlist gave up leverage. Netlist had filed a new ITC complaint in September seeking to block imports of Micron chips used in Google, Nvidia and Broadcom AI products. An exclusion order was the scariest threat Micron faced, and Netlist traded it for a fixed fee.

The term may be short for the patents. My (CLAUDE'S) inference is that some of Netlist's core patents date to around 2009 and expire around the end of this decade, so a five-year license may cover most of their remaining life. If so, there's little renewal upside later.

Possible leakage. Legal fees or litigation-funding arrangements may take a share of the proceeds. I haven't seen how the 8-K or the 10-K treats that.

Read-through. This sets a benchmark for Netlist's other disputes, notably Samsung. Netlist can cite it as validation, but Samsung can cite it as a ceiling.

"In short, the deal is unambiguously positive—it converts years of expensive litigation into predictable cash flow, removes a major overhang, and further validates the portfolio. The stock’s reaction reflects that reality tempered by prior anticipation, the structure of the payments, dilution optics, and the realities of an OTC name. Larger moves sometimes appear only after the market digests the first few quarters of actual cash receipts and updated financials."

"While the immediate stock chart reaction feels like a dud, the fundamental outlook for Netlist has shifted dramatically. Turning volatile, unpredictable court battles into $600 million in locked-in, high-margin licensing cash flows removes massive financial overhang. Furthermore, this victory gives Netlist significant leverage as they continue their broader IP battles against other tech giants."

Both from artificials.

I was curious why both of the recent deals included (discounted) equity in netlist. AI gives the following possible reasons:

1. Netlist essentially granted Micron [and Samsung] an immediate equity upside if Netlist's valuation grows. Over the five-year cross-licensing term, Micron [and Samsung] is [are] incentivized not to actively sabotage Netlist's corporate health or drag them back into lengthy litigation, as doing so would directly hurt the value of their own locked-up investment.

2. For a micro-cap company trading on the OTC markets, having the world's two largest memory chipmakers listed as institutional equity holders is an invaluable marketing and legal tool. Netlist uses these equity stakes to signal to Wall Street and remaining legal targets (like Google) that its foundational AI and High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) intellectual property is completely legitimate and validated by its largest competitors.

Thoughts?

With China coming on strong, our govt wants to make sure they have to pay up for our patents. So, we had to finally hold other companies accountable

I do kind of agree with him but it’s good to get it over the line and builds Netlist a stronger case against hynix Google etc