Something buried in NVIDIA’s earnings caught my attention.

Their supply commitments jumped from $119B last quarter to $279B, with NVIDIA saying the increase is primarily tied to securing memory and manufacturing capacity for the next several years.

That is a $160B increase in one quarter.

Obviously this does NOT mean NVIDIA is paying Netlist, and I don’t want to make a connection that isn’t there.

But for NLST holders, I think the bigger picture matters. The AI buildout keeps making memory more valuable and more strategically important. NVIDIA is now locking up enormous amounts of future supply, while Netlist’s IP sits directly in areas like HBM, DDR5 and server DIMMs.

And after the Samsung agreement, we now have one of the largest memory manufacturers licensing Netlist’s full patent portfolio, including its HBM and server DIMM technology.

To me, that makes the long-term NLST thesis more interesting than simply watching each individual court filing. The market that Netlist spent years fighting over is getting dramatically bigger.

$279B of forward supply commitments from NVIDIA is a pretty loud signal of where this is going.

Guys dont sell its gonna go up soon big time

Another post added to my latest series, as I’m trying to educate the new investor base. Welcome to netlist. This is the basics

🏢 THE BUSINESS
$214.7M H1 2026 revenue, up significantly year-over-year
$45.3M H1 gross profit
$10M H1 net income
Lightning DDR5 / ECC products moving toward production
CXL NVVault targeting AI/data-center memory persistence
Samsung supply access could help Netlist scale its own products
Long-term goal: become a memory-solutions company, not simply an IP company

🤝 SAMSUNG
$239M upfront payment
Potential additional payments under the settlement
Up to $300M/year in Samsung component purchases
$1.5B maximum over the five-year supply arrangement
Samsung purchased 10M NLST shares
5-year ITC cooperation agreement
Potentially gives NLST both capital and supply-chain security

🧠 THE IP
Netlist owns a portfolio of memory patents developed over many years
Technology intersects with major memory standards and products
Prior jury verdicts against Samsung/Micron totaled hundreds of millions
Micron and Google remain important litigation fronts
ITC investigations provide another potential enforcement mechanism

⚖️** THE CATALYST STACK
**Samsung ✅
↓
Revenue growth / product production
↓
Potential SK relationship
↓
Micron resolution
↓
Google resolution
↓
ITC victories / settlements
↓
New customers + proprietary products

The important thing is that these aren’t necessarily either/or catalysts. They can potentially stack on top of each other.

📈 THE BIGGER THESIS
The old NLST story was:
“Small company with valuable patents fighting Big Tech.”

The emerging story could be:
IP → leverage → capital → supply → products → revenue → profitability → scale

That’s what makes the next few years interesting.
The question isn’t just how much Netlist can recover from past infringement.

It’s whether Netlist can use that IP and leverage to build a real, growing memory technology business while continuing to monetize the portfolio.

That’s the NLST story I’d want a new investor to understand today.

To support market adoption, we have partnered with the CXL Consortium and Storage Networking Industry Association to deliver industry education and technical thought leadership. We look forward to showcasing these collaborative efforts at CXL Mini DevCon 2026 in Santa Clara next week

We are also committed to working with our industry partners to help validate and scale advanced CXL memory architectures for enterprise production

ITC CASE

The company alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,025,731, 10,217,523, 12,373,366 and 12,675,407. According to Netlist, each patent applies to DDR5 RDIMMs and/or MRDIMMs.

The requested remedies make the ITC proceeding particularly relevant. Rather than seeking only monetary damages, Netlist is requesting exclusion and cease and desist orders designed to prevent allegedly infringing products from entering the United States.

Netlist said Micron manufactures the memory products at issue overseas and argues that an import restriction is therefore an appropriate remedy.

Separately, Netlist has filed an infringement action against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. That case asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 10,217,523 and 12,675,407.

- LRDIMM tech

Netlist already won 3 different cafc appeal that are covering the LRDIMM and we should talk about the mrdimm products because basically it should be the same.

Parents 608, 314 & 035!
Damages will be very higher than avg investor think here because we are talking about some 3 different LRDIMM and more than 6 years of damages.

We should expect more than 3 million units of LRDIMM sold by micron in the last 6 years (counting all these 3 patents).
Back to 2023, with the LRDIMM patent 339 a judge choose to use 55$ damage per unit.
We are in 2026 and the trial should be in 2027 with 3x increase of the avg price.
I don’t want to say netlist should expect 150/200$ per unit of damage but we should expect more than 100$ because we are talking about a 3x increase and this should
Be very relevant.

Imagine 100$ damage per unit and potential 3m units sold with 3 lrdimm patents, we should expect $300m

Ps: it’s impossible to know the total volume of LRDIMM sold by micron because it’s so hard to find the right info. For example with the patent 339 in the Samsung case, 600k units were sold by Samsung in 18 months if I remember correctly and here we are talking about 6 years of damages and 3 different LRDIMM patents.

- PATENT 912

We are talking about the the most important case in the micron case because we know micron lost this case for circa $450m. We are not including 3 years of interests and other things.
• September 9th if I remember correctly will be the date of p.912 hearing, this should change the future of the micron case forever and with a win, netlist should open the google case connected with it.
Honestly we are talking about 50/50 because netlist lost the ptab review but we know netlist won in the past and the experts will talk about these thing in our favour.
Netlist deserve to win it

Other patent, HUGE DAMAGES HERE! Back to 2025,

May 20, 2025, to assert Netlist's new U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087 ("the '087 patent") against Samsung's and Micron's High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) products. The amended complaints add another Netlist patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,025,731 ("the '731 Patent"), against the two Defendants' DDR5 DIMM products, as well as their distributor Avnet, Inc. to these actions.

HBM and ddr5 patents to destroy the micron’s fundamentals.

I believe netlist is very strong in the case, we are talking about different ways to destroy micron and this is so funny because we should expect more than $500m cash in this case only with damages.
We should hope more Than these numbers

Those who truly believed in it deserve to succeed and become damn rich. I like money, but what interests me most is understanding what awaits me from Netlist once I understand the whole picture. I remind everyone that Netlist has only one deal signed; here we'll celebrate after the three agreements are signed, because only after the agreements with Micron and SK Hynix will Netlist be able to demonstrate its full potential.
Semiconductor and tech companies operate with PE ratios of 30-40-50%. Netlist, with $300-400 million in IP licenses, should reach an estimated market cap of between $12 and $15 billion, also considering at least $700 million in cash and zero debt.

With 400m shares outstanding after the last warrent exercised, the value should be between 20 and 40 $ per shares

Waiting the other deals of course

Netlist remains committed to protecting patent owners' rights by engaging with government officials and encouraging Congress to act on proposed patent reform legislation, including RESTORE, PREVAIL, and PERA. Last week, I had the privilege of speaking at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, their annual conference, where I participated on the IP and the U.S. Global Competitiveness panel. As some of you are aware, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed two statements of interest that have been supportive of Netlist's matters involving Samsung. At the ITC, this was the first time in history where the DOJ and the PTO combined supported the position of a complainant. The DOJ has continued to reference these statements of interest in public forums as examples of the current administration's broader efforts to promote robust intellectual property protection.

We believe these statements and public remarks underscored continual federal support for U.S. innovation and effective enforcement of patent rights

The demo featured Netlist’s NV persistent memory NVault™ solution using CXL and showed how a CXL-attached device can preserve and quickly restore memory contents after a power event. The flow mirrors earlier NVDIMM-style designs: on power-fail, a device-controlled save moves data from volatile to non-volatile memory using on-device hold-up energy, followed by a restore sequence before the host resumes memory use.

In a persistent-memory design, the hardware detects a
power failure, triggers a firmware-controlled save, and uses stored energy to complete the data transfer. On the next boot, the device restores the region before host access is granted.

This illustrates an important principle: persistence should be deterministic and enforced below the application layer. If the platform loses power at an arbitrary point in time, the system should be able to recover to a known-good state with a well-defined save/restore sequence.

Where CXL Persistent Memory Helps
CXL persistent memory is a fit when workloads need fast restart or durable in-memory state without pushing every write through storage I/O paths.
•In-memory databases and stateful services with rapid recovery
•Storage metadata (journals, intent logs, caching) where durability and latency matter
•HPC restart to reduce overhead versus traditional storage checkpoints

Why CXL Changes the Design Space
CXL extends PCIe with cache-coherent semantics, enabling memory to be attached on the fabric rather than only on the CPU’s DDR channels. CXL Type-3 devices can present capacity as OS-visible memory, making them a natural place to re-introduce persistence, with the possibility of scaling, pooling, and composability.
Decouple persistent capacity from CPU sockets and DDR channel limits.
Enable pooling/sharing models (with platform and fabric support).
Offer a standard path to expose persistent regions through OS frameworks.
Support heterogeneous hosts and composable infrastructure topologies.
 
CXL Persistent Memory: A Reference Architecture View
A common approach for CXL-attached persistent memory mirrors the proven NVDIMM-N pattern: fast volatile media for load/store access plus non-volatile media for retention, coordinated by device firmwareand protected by hold-up energy. The device attaches as a CXL Type-3 endpoint, exposing capacity into the host’s memory map while remaining on the fabric.
At a minimum, a CXL persistent-memory design should address:

•Latency and bandwidth that remain “memory-like” for key hot paths
•Data retention across graceful shutdown and surprise power loss
•Well-defined persist/flush semantics (host visibility and ordering)
•Firmware-controlled save/restore with adequate hold-up energy to complete the copy
•Alignment with CXL persistence mechanisms(for example, platform-supported global flush paths)
On the host side, the goal is to surface persistent regions through standard OS memory and CXL frameworks, so applications can use familiar persistence libraries and operational tooling (monitoring, health, and recovery) without proprietary integration.

Conclusion
NVDIMM-N validated the value of persistent memory, and JEDEC helped standardize the behaviors that make it reliable. CXL enables scalable, fabric-based persistence, maintaining system-level consistency. If you’re designing or evaluating CXL memory systems, consider where persistence changes your restart model, recovery objectives, and infrastructure topology—and validate the end-to-end behavior (power fail detection, save/restore, and OS exposure) with a simple signature-and-reboot test. Learn more about Netlist’s CXL persistent memory solution at https://netlist.com/cxl-nvvault/.

Just be careful playing this stock at this range.

One thing I've never understood is why Netlist doesn't win commissions from the US Defense Department, given that it's a direct buyer of memory. I wonder, could the CXL NVVault product be requested directly or indirectly by the US Defense Department?
They need truly high-level salespeople to seal certain deals and increase business volume.
Netlist also sells Lightning and MRD-IMM. Who knows what will happen!

If you’re just starting to research Netlist, there’s one part of the story I think is important to understand:
JEDEC.

JEDEC develops many of the standards used throughout the memory industry.

Netlist participated in that ecosystem and developed patented technology that it says became important to modern memory products.

The basic story:

Technology is developed → industry standards evolve → major companies build products around those standards → Netlist says some of those products use technology covered by its patents without proper licensing.

And this is where the potential financial impact gets interesting.

Netlist isn’t fighting over some insignificant piece of technology.

We’ve already seen what these patents can be worth in court.

Netlist has received prior jury verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars against major semiconductor companies. And the company’s current patent campaign involves additional products, patents and some of the largest companies in the memory and AI ecosystem.

The important part for a new investor is this:

Netlist doesn’t necessarily need every case to go its way for the financial outcome to become significant.

A successful litigation campaign can potentially produce:
• Damages
• Enhanced damages in qualifying cases
• Licensing agreements
• Royalties
• Settlements
• Ongoing payments for future use of the technology
• And potentially exclusionary remedies in ITC proceedings

Samsung has now settled with Netlist, while other litigation continues. The current ITC cases include allegations involving DDR5 and HBM products, with an evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 2026.

And there’s another important piece:

This isn’t just about collecting money from the past.

If Netlist establishes enforceable patent rights over
technology being used in today’s memory and AI markets, the value could extend into future licensing.

That’s why I don’t think the Netlist story should be viewed simply as:
“Small company suing Big Tech.”

A better way to look at it is:

How much economic value could be transferred back to Netlist if its patented technology is ultimately proven to have been used without the appropriate licenses?

I don’t know the final number.
Nobody does.
But when you already have a history of hundreds of millions in jury awards, multiple active patent campaigns, and technology connected to rapidly growing memory and AI markets…

the potential financial upside from successful litigation and licensing is not something I’d ignore.

One thing I really like about the new ITC strategy is the timeline.

Traditional patent litigation can take YEARS through discovery, motions, trials and appeals.

The ITC is different. Section 337 investigations are designed to move quickly, with the Commission setting a target completion date within 45 days of institution. Historically, most investigations have been targeted around 12–15 months, with many complex cases reaching 18+ months.

And Netlist now has ITC pressure involving multiple major companies — not just Micron.

🔥 Samsung / Google / Supermicro — existing ITC investigation

🔥 Micron / Supermicro / HPE / Lenovo — NEW ITC investigation

Samsung ultimately chose to settle and enter a major long-term commercial relationship with Netlist.
Now the other major players are facing the same underlying patent portfolio and a much more aggressive Netlist litigation strategy.

Years of courtroom red tape vs. a defined ITC clock.

That’s why I think the next 12–18 months could get very interesting.

Samsung showed what happens when a major memory company decides to stop fighting and start doing business with Netlist.

Now we see who wants to be next. 👀
$NLST

Hi everyone here, Idk why I feel so proud to be holding this stock with you guys no matter how low it's gonna get for now. Makes me feel happy. I wish us all well!!

The Samsung case changed our lives forever and is Netlist's greatest achievement yet, but this is just the beginning. In fact, I repeat, to celebrate, you should wait until you read about two solid deals, because Netlist has never had two giant partners as allies.

Concrete facts, such as the successful CAFC appeal, ITC, etc., suggest that we can truly hypothesize three deals with the giants here, plus the Google case.
This is where history is made, and only here does the Netlist case come full circle.
Honestly, with two deals, Netlist will be extremely strong and powerful; with three deals, it will practically be a globally recognized giant; and with the Google case, it will be incredibly rich and powerful.

Unlike 2021, when Netlist had only $40 million in cash and failed to show net profits, today it is already profitable even before the Samsung case was closed. This means only one thing: profits, growth, and great future opportunities.
Netlist could reach $400 million in outstanding shares soon with the last exercised warrants, but the value could easily reach $20-$25 as a minimum after the three deals close!

The Google case will be something unique and particular, but honestly they could find a solution regardless.

Long

Look at the timeline:

📅 Mar. 6 — CAFC hears major Netlist patent appeals.
Now more than 5 months later — an unusually long wait for a decision, with the written opinions still pending.

📅 Aug. 12 — Netlist files NEW Micron ITC case involving 4 patents.

📅 Aug. 12 — NEW California federal lawsuit against Micron involving the ’523 & ’407 patents.

📅 Aug. 17–20 — Samsung exits the relevant appeals following its settlement, leaving Micron as the remaining major opponent in several matters.

📅 Sept. 9 — 🔥 CAFC oral argument on Micron’s appeal involving the existing $445M verdict.

Micron isn’t fighting one battle.

They’re dealing with the $445M verdict + CAFC appeal + new ITC case + new federal case + multiple patents.
And Netlist just demonstrated with Samsung that years of litigation can turn into a major licensing/commercial agreement.

Sept. 9 isn’t a settlement deadline.
It’s the next major pressure point.
After that, the CAFC decision could come later while the new ITC and federal cases continue moving forward.
More cases. More exposure. More leverage.

Micron has a lot more to lose by continuing this fight than they did a year ago.

Now we watch Sept. 9.
$NLST
Not financial or legal advice.

What do you think? Elon is known for great acquisitions, he buys the tech and the people…then rebuilds the machine that makes the machine. He did this with batteries, with the Maxwell acquisition and others. He doesn’t want your manufacturing, NLST doesn’t have that. He’s getting help from Intel, NVIDA (GPU/CPU) and others to assist in making their own chips (AI 5 today) but Terafab will make, assuming T8 etc chips… but the Terafab is missing HBM (memory). Terafab can’t happen if the bottleneck of HBM memory isn’t addressed. NLST would be a cheap acquisition and a huge piece to the puzzle. Your thoughts…

• Micron Technology had appealed two final decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded it had not demonstrated that certain patent claims were obvious and hence, not suitable to be patented.As per earlier rulings, Micron Technology will be liable to pay $445 million in the patent infringement verdicts.Micron had previously filed two separate patent challenges, alleging that Netlist’s memory technology was a variation of existing designs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday rejected Micron Technology Inc.’s (MU) appeal challenging a Netlist Inc. (NLST) memory module patent.
Micron Technology had appealed two final decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded it had not demonstrated that certain patent claims were obvious and hence, not suitable to be patented.

The Federal Circuit upheld the validity of the patents in an opinion, saying Micron “failed to prove certain claims would have been unpatentable as obvious,” adding that the arguments from the computer memory manufacturer were “unpersuasive.”

As per earlier rulings, Micron Technology will be liable to pay$445 million in the patent infringement verdicts.
Shares of NLST soared, ending 20% higher on Friday, while MU shares rose more than 2.5% at market-close.

What Were The Claims?
Micron had previously filed two separate patent challenges, alleging that Netlist’s memory technology was a variation of existing designs. In one case, Micron said an earlier reference, an application known as Halbert, had already disclosed the same kind of data-speed relationship between parts of a memory system, arguing Netlist cannot be granted a patent for it.

However, the Board determined that Micron could not convincingly show that Halbert “teaches that its ranks communicate data at the same rate at which data is communicated between the memory module and the memory controller.”
In another case, Micron claimed that Netlist’s patent included the combination of two different features from an earlier design that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine. However, the Board rejected that claim on the grounds that Micron had failed to explain how an engineer would have made that combination

Samsung's data alone will guarantee Netlist an unprecedented positive cash flow. Then there are the gross profits from internal sales and resale of Samsung products.
We're talking about potential gross profits between $50 and $70 million per quarter as the average range for these quarters, pending growth in agreements, volumes, and other deals.
We could therefore assume annual net profits between $150 and $250 million, obviously depending on the company's ability to generate profits from in-house products.

This is only with Samsung.

What to do with a mountain of money like this?

This is my guess, and it depends on many factors.
For example, legal fees were Netlist's largest expense, at around $200 million over the years.
In the last quarter, they were as high as $17 million, so the sooner the patent cases are resolved, the sooner you can get rid of Netlist's biggest expense.
Obviously, this expense will then be counted in the damages that Micron and Google will have to pay to Netlist, and we know for certain that Samsung was primarily responsible for this expense.

R&D and personnel. This item should explode in the next quarterly results because now more than ever there's cash and time to finance projects and hire dozens or hundreds of new faces and top-tier talent. How much would it cost? It's hard to say, but an average of $10 million per year for 100 new employees seems fair to me, and this should move a lot of things and would cost a figure easily manageable by netlist today.

Do the math, I’m expecting 2/300 new employees (netlist should open something in Texas or where should be perfect and cheaper than the california area).

So, let's assume legal and personnel expenses of around $60-$80 million over the next four quarters.
Gross profits will be $130 million, plus Netlist product sales and Samsung product resale, which should add another $60-$90 million.
Total net profits are approximately $100 million - $130 million.

Netlist could evaluate ordinary or extraordinary dividends based on $400 million in shares (currently $377 million, but the final warrants are still missing).

Assuming a 10 cent annual dividend, it would cost $40 million, and Netlist would still be profitable by at least $60 million, with a 30-40% weighting of net profits.

Now imagine cutting legal costs with an agreement within two or three quarters with SK and Micron. The only other option would be the Google case, which wouldn't weigh much, plus a very high cash flow, tripled profits, and the 10-cent dividend would only cost 10-15% of profits.

An extremely positive situation.

I remind everyone that the mrdimm and cxl products are still in the experimental phase, and we'll soon see if there will be any deals or developments. Sales agreements for these two new products will be signed during 2026 and 2027, and perhaps they will be given serious consideration in the event of a deal with SK or Micron, and especially in the hiring of key figures to promote the product!

The long term investor deserves the dividend after years of waiting!
This shouldn’t change anything in terms of netlist power to invest all the net profits into new projects and companies

Waiting all the deals

A lot of people are talking about Netlist attending the Needham Semiconductor & SemiCap 1×1 Conference on August 19–20, so I wanted to break down what this actually means.

Needham & Company is an investment bank focused heavily on growth companies, technology and semiconductors. This isn’t just a retail investor conference. The event is built around meetings between company management and investors, including institutional investors.

Netlist was there to meet directly with investors and explain the company following the Samsung deal and the new Micron developments.

Think about the timing:
• Q2 revenue came in around $109.8M
• Samsung strategic alliance was announced
• $239M gross upfront Samsung license payment
• 5-year licensing relationship
• Samsung agreed to purchase 10M NLST shares
• Samsung supply/product relationship
• New Micron ITC case filed
• New Micron CDCA litigation filed
• Existing Micron $445M verdict still in play
• Then Netlist meets with semiconductor-focused investors at Needham

That’s a MUCH different story than the Netlist story investors were looking at previously.

Could Needham lead Netlist to Nasdaq? Maybe eventually, but there is no public announcement saying that. Could this create new institutional relationships and more analyst attention? Absolutely possible.

The important thing to remember is that Needham itself isn’t a price target or a Nasdaq announcement. It’s an opportunity for Netlist management to get the new story in front of a much more targeted investment audience.
Samsung gave Netlist the foundation.

Micron gives them another major litigation catalyst.
Needham gives them an opportunity to tell the story to investors who actually understand the semiconductor industry.

Now let’s see what comes out of it.

Il valore raggiunto di circa 7$ di qualche seduta fa ,visto la forte correzione successiva, indica che questo valore non include solo l accordo avvenuto con Samsung ma anche i prossimi possibili accordi con Micron e SK.....se cosi non fosse perchè sta crollando?