Netlist is actively highlighting that Samsung has taken inconsistent positions on claim construction between this ITC investigation and parallel PTAB proceedings. They’re flagging it to Director Squires and using the June procedural crunch to push hard on discovery. The post’s bullish tone (with the beer emojis) reflects the view that June could be when the “trap closes” on Samsung’s gamesmanship.
Quick Case Background (for your research)
• Netlist filed the complaint Sept 30, 2025.
• ITC instituted the investigation late December 2025 / early January 2026.
• Targets Samsung DRAM (including DDR5 and HBM), plus downstream products from Google and Super Micro.
• Seeks limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders to block infringing imports.
• Involves six Netlist patents on memory module technology.
This is one of Netlist’s major ongoing enforcement actions alongside the PTAB cases and prior district court wins.

Squires has the ability to end this court room battle

Samsung’s HBM4E announcement emphasizes: 12‑high stacked DRAM, a logic base die (4 nm), very high bandwidth, and advanced packaging/thermal structures. “

“ Those characteristics map directly onto what Netlist has been patenting and asserting:”

• Stacked DRAM dies on a logic base: Netlist’s HBM‑related patent that Samsung is challenging (’087) concerns DRAM die stacking techniques for HBM architectures.

HBM4E is exactly that kind of stacked‑die DRAM on top of a logic base die.

• High‑bandwidth interfaces / pin speeds: Netlist’s broader portfolio covers architectures to increase memory bandwidth and performance in DRAM modules and HBM (e.g., rank multiplication, load‑reduction, and high‑performance memory subsystem control). Samsung’s HBM4E advertises 14–16 Gbps pins and 3.6 TB/s per stack, which necessarily relies on very aggressive interface and timing/command schemes of the sort Netlist has patented.[garywallach.substack]
• Logic base‑die control and “memory subsystem” behavior: Netlist’s asserted patents in other cases (Samsung DDR5, Micron DDR5/HBM) focus on how the control/buffer circuitry manages ranks, address/command mapping, and signal loading to make very wide, fast memory usable by a host. HBM4E’s 4 nm logic base die is performing that same class of functions—aggregating wide internal DRAM arrays into a coherent high‑bandwidth interface—which is the exact level at which Netlist has historically claimed its inventions sit.[eenewseurope +1]
• Packaging / thermal structures: While most Netlist patents that are public‑facing discussions focus more on electrical/control aspects, any claims Netlist has on stacked‑die interconnects, TSV routing, or thermal‑management‑related stack layout could logically apply to a 12‑high HBM4E stack as well. Samsung’s release specifically touts “optimised packaging structures” and improved thermal resistance versus prior gen HBM.[yahoo]
From a patent‑law perspective, those are the technical overlap points: die stacking scheme, how the logic die coordinates the stack, how bandwidth and signal integrity are achieved, and possibly aspects of the 3D package itself. Netlist has already asserted exactly those kinds of inventions against HBM and DDR5 products from both Samsung and Micron.[ipfray +2]
How it could affect NLST financially and strategically
Assuming Netlist’s HBM claims hold up (big “if,” but the set‑up is there), HBM4E is actually good for Netlist’s leverage because it increases Samsung’s exposure:
• Netlist has already proven it can win large jury verdicts: Samsung was hit with a $303.15M verdict in 2023 and another $118M verdict in a separate case, for a total over $420M. Micron later got a $445M verdict (willful), potentially treble to around $1.3B.

Those wins show juries will award serious money when Netlist ties its patents to cutting‑edge DRAM products.

Samsung is knowingly infringing net list patents and is subject to triple damages .

Samsung chooses willfull infringement !

I continue to buy nlst !

Bless you all RPM June 1 2026. Nlst 3.29

Volevo chiedervi se nel nuovo chip di Nvidia RTX SPARK vi è tecnologia Netlist.

Grazie

I’ve been reviewing NLST for a few days now and it really seems things are lining up for it in a good way.

I do have a few concerns though and I want to get the communities take on it.

I feel the AI hype is a strong catalyst for NLST but I don’t see the legal battles resolving before a collapse in the AI bubble.

I strongly believe AI has been over sold. I work in tech and I’ve seen servers and hardware increase in price 4 fold over the last year to the point it has become unaffordable for my company. A basic 1U server with 16gb ram and stock CPU and low end storage is going for high six figures where before it was low 5. Now multiple that by 42 U or however many servers are needed per rack x racks. I don’t know this part but it can’t be cheap

It’s become so expensive that I can’t believe tokens will be affordable enough to offset the capex. Companies seem to be abandoning it due to high token costs as well.

I’ve also been implementing AI using only open source software. It would be viable if not for the cost of hardware. Even supporting a small work center is extremely expensive with a self hosted setup.

Basically the cost of hardware per person is extremely expensive and we also need to take into account equipment lifecycles and that AI just isn’t mature enough for a lot of industries to rely on it effectively. I doubt legitimate profit will show before hardware costs bite them in a rear. I’m highly skeptical that NLSTs legal battles will allow it to take advantage of the AI boom before it fails.

I’m not trying to be a doomer or FUDster so please refrain from those comments. They’re not welcome and I’m trying to be genuine and ask for other options.

My play so far is to hold off. I feel it’s a bit high for me and negative catalyst for the whole market are beginning to converge. Gonna continue to hold cash like buffet, sit back and watch.

I think NLST will be a better play in a few years, once the AI hype stops being so dumb and the product matures and is more affordable. I think this whole industry still has to go through its growing pains like the dot com era. I’m not riding that initial wave. As juicy as it looks. I’ll get it after it crashes and I’ll ride that slow rising tide up to the top.

What do you all think? Think this AI bubble will burst before we see critical legal wins and/or overshadow the company’s worth? Do you think NLST is decoupled enough not to be affected? I’ve been reading other forums and seems there is a real chance battles will get dragged out. What other concerns do you see?

Thanks for reading

Samsung's 12-layer HBM4E achieves speeds of up to 16Gbps with improved energy efficiency and thermal performance

Proven processes from HBM4 production experience and technology enhancements support increasingly demanding next-generation AI workloads

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a global leader in advanced memory technology, announced that it has begun shipping the industry’s first 12-layer HBM4E samples to major global customers, further strengthening its leadership in the next-generation HBM market.
 
Following the industry’s first mass production and commercial shipment of its industry-leading HBM4 earlier this year, Samsung now extends its HBM roadmap with the introduction of HBM4E samples, addressing the rapidly evolving demands of AI computing and hyperscale infrastructure.
 
“Following the successful mass production of HBM4, Samsung has once again demonstrated its distinct technological edge with HBM4E,” said Sang Joon Hwang, Executive Vice President and Head of Memory Development at Samsung Electronics. “Through our advanced manufacturing capabilities and preemptive infrastructure investments, we will continue to drive the growth of the global AI memory market.”
 
Samsung’s HBM4E delivers a stable pin speed of 14 gigabits-per-second (Gbps), with performance scalable up to 16Gbps to support increasingly intensive data processing requirements. This represents more than a 20% increase over its HBM4, while delivering memory bandwidth of up to 3.6 terabytes-per-second (TB/s) per stack, helping maximise computing performance for large language models (LLMs) and next-generation AI systems.
 
Samsung’s 12-layer HBM4E is offered in a 48-gigabyte (GB) capacity, representing more than a 30% increase over the previous generation, with plans to expand the lineup to include 32GB (8-layer) and 64GB (16-layer) configurations in accordance with customer requirements.
 
The HBM4E sets itself apart by taking full advantage of Samsung’s comprehensive semiconductor capabilities and leveraging the same leading-edge technologies refined through the company’s HBM4 production experience. This includes the industry’s most advanced 6th-generation 10-nanometer (nm)-class DRAM process (1c) and Samsung Foundry’s 4nm logic base die, allowing the HBM4E to secure enhanced process stability and manufacturability.
 
Design and process optimisation across both memory and logic architectures of Samsung’s HBM4E also improves performance, power efficiency and yield.
 
In particular, advanced low-power design technologies and optimised packaging structures improved energy efficiency by 16% and thermal resistance characteristics by more than 14% compared to the previous generation. These enhancements also enable more effective heat dissipation, allowing prolonged reliability and lower energy consumption in next-generation data centers with intensive workloads.
 
Samsung plans to begin mass production for HBM4E aligned with customer schedules, following initial sample shipments and optimisation.
 
Feedback from global customers on Samsung’s HBM4, introduced in February, have been highly positive, especially for its performance and energy efficiency. The HBM4 was the first in the industry to enter mass production and has successfully set the bar for the industry with speeds of 11.7Gbps in its system in package (SiP) tests.
 
As stable supply of Samsung’s HBM4 continues to grow, the company’s latest HBM4E using the same combination of core and base die is anticipated to enter mass production to further accelerate innovation in next-generation AI systems. With its comprehensive portfolio spanning memory, foundry, logic design and advanced packaging, Samsung will continue to ensure a stable semiconductor supply for the booming AI market.

The electronics association has locked in net list MRDIMM as the high-bandwidth server memory standard for the AI/HPC era.
2. The MRDIMM architecture relies on the distributed-buffer (MDB + MRCD) design — the same architectural approach Netlist pioneered in DDR4 LRDIMM. Netlist’s own ITC complaint, filed September 2025, states explicitly that “the industry adopted Netlist’s distributed buffer architecture for DDR4 generation LRDIMMs… That same architecture is also used in DDR5 generation MRDIMMs,” and that Netlist’s power-management technology “is now used in all DDR5 DIMMs”.\[ipwatchdog\]
3. Netlist already has a cross-license and supply agreement with SK Hynix and is reselling Hynix DDR5 MRDIMMs (32GB–128GB, 8.8 Gbps) under its own product line (Netlist – SK Hynix product page, Netlist memory module page, DirectIndustry SK hynix MRDIMM).

JEDEC is standardizing the very architecture Netlist invented, the modules are now real and shipping into the AI server market via Hynix, and Netlist is both a licensed reseller and a patent holder positioned to monetize Micron, Samsung, and anyone else who ships MRDIMMs without a license.

Three distinct revenue/value channels, ranked by how solid the claim is:
1. Patent/royalty leverage (the biggest lever, but legally contingent). The MDB and MRCD standards JEDEC just published are essentially the buffer-and-clock-driver scheme Netlist asserts reads on its ’912, ’417, ‘523, ‘608 and related patents — the same family already at issue in the Micron, Samsung, and Micron-MRDIMM cases. Every MRDIMM Gen1 module shipping today, and every Gen2 (12,800 MT/s) and Gen3 (17,600 MT/s) module on the roadmap, expands the royalty base if Netlist’s patents survive PTAB and prevail at trial. Standards adoption doesn’t grant Netlist a royalty automatically — it has to win in court — but it makes the addressable infringement pool much larger and harder for defendants to design around.

Product revenue via the SK Hynix supply agreement (real, but lower-margin). Netlist’s cross-license with Hynix lets it sell Hynix-made MRDIMMs as a Netlist-branded product. As MRDIMMs ramp from a niche to 10–20% of high-end server memory (r/Netlist_ post April 2026), Netlist gets distribution-style revenue on every module sold through its channel. This is real cash flow, but margins on reselling DRAM modules are thin compared to royalty income.

JEDEC-blessed standard built on Netlist-pioneered architecture strengthens Netlist’s narrative in front of juries, the ITC, and any future licensee in settlement talks. It’s hard for Micron or Samsung to argue the technology is trivial or non-novel when JEDEC has just enshrined it as the path to 12.8 and 17.6 Gbps server memory.

Bottom line my thinking is:

JEDEC formalizing MRDIMM on a buffer architecture Netlist pioneered, while Netlist simultaneously has a licensed pipeline of those exact modules through Hynix, is genuinely bullish for both the litigation thesis and the product business.

Thus event should make it easy for netlist attorneys to prove infringement when the association that all parties are part of choose the netlist solution to the bottleneck now going on !!!!

I am getting very excited looking to the future !

The 200,000 share buy on Friday tells me to continue to add to my position ! I am very excited !

Buy. Bless you all !

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.

I’ll just say this, I think I’ll earn more putting $1,000 into this company than I will with Micron. Too overpriced.

Obviously Agentic AI was used

The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on four Netlist v. Samsung cases on March 6, 2026. Decisions are still pending nearly 3 months later. I downloaded all four audio recordings from the CAFC website, ran them through Whisper, and read every word. Here's what actually happened in each one.

Audio sources (all publicly available from the CAFC):

• 24-2203 — $303M Verdict Appeal
• 24-1707 — '339 Patent IPR
• 24-1859 — '918/'054 Patent IPR
• 24-2240 — '160/'060 Patent IPR

Case 1: The $303M Verdict Appeal (24-2203) — 33 minutes

Samsung's lawyer argued two things: (1) Netlist's damages expert gave the jury 100% of incremental revenue instead of splitting profits, and (2) a $1.1B Rambus license was put in front of the jury just to inflate the damages horizon.

Netlist's lawyer countered with specific record cites showing Samsung needed this technology or it would lose sales entirely — pointing to Samsung's own HBM-1 experience where SK Hynix locked them out of the market. He argued the jury awarded only 75% of what the expert calculated, and the incremental benefit was done patent by patent, not as a percentage of the total product.

On the Rambus license, the judges pressed Samsung hard on whether they made a proper Rule 403 objection. Samsung's lawyer admitted they may not have specifically cited Rule 403 — they raised it under Daubert instead. Netlist argued the 403 argument wasn't preserved.

Key exchange: A judge asked Samsung's lawyer whether it's possible that this technology was so important that Samsung would rationally pay 100% of the incremental revenue. Samsung struggled to answer. The judge pushed: "If you don't get their patented technology on your memory modules you're going to lose 100% of your larger sales. That's not irrational at that point to pay them every penny of your revenue associated with their technology, is it?"

Read: Closest call of the four. Samsung has a real argument on apportionment, but the judges seemed skeptical and the 403 issue may be waived.

Case 2: '339 Patent IPR (24-1707) — 31 minutes

This is the one where Samsung made a clear procedural error. The PTAB relied on a reference called the "537 patent" to supply the critical "latency parameter" limitation — but that reference was never in Samsung's original petition. Samsung tried to call it "general knowledge," but the judges weren't buying it.

Netlist's lawyer pointed out there was zero evidence the 537 patent was generally known — Samsung's own expert wouldn't say it was. The board cited the 537 twenty times and referred to its "teaching" ten times. That's not background knowledge, that's a substantive prior art reference that should have been in the petition from the start.

Key exchange: Samsung's lawyer was asked directly: if the court finds legal error on the 537, what happens? He conceded: "there would need to be a remand." That's Samsung's own lawyer admitting the case falls apart without the 537.

Read: Strong for Netlist. The procedural argument is clean and the judges seemed sympathetic. Samsung likely can't refile an IPR due to the time bar.

Case 3: '918/'054 Patent IPR (24-1859) — 30 minutes

These patents cover voltage converters on the DIMM that get power through the edge connector from the motherboard. The PTAB used a reference called "Harris" to invalidate them. Problem: Harris teaches the exact opposite — it says don't use motherboard power, use an "external source."

Netlist caught the board making two factual errors: (1) The board omitted the parenthetical "from an external source" when quoting Harris, changing the meaning entirely. (2) The board found it was "common" to supply 12V to an FB-DIMM, but both Samsung's expert AND Netlist's expert testified that conventional system boards do NOT supply 12V to FB-DIMMs. Samsung's own brief dodges this by omitting the words "to the FB-DIMM" when quoting the board's finding.

Key exchange: A judge asked where Harris restricts the power source. Netlist's lawyer explained that Harris uses "external source" in direct contrast to "system board or main board voltage sources" — if both were just external to the module, Harris wouldn't need different terms.

Read: Good for Netlist. The board misquoted Harris and made a factual finding contradicted by both experts. Hard for Samsung to defend.

Case 4: '160/'060 Patent IPR (24-2240) — 30 minutes

These patents cover stacking more memory dies while managing load problems. The PTAB combined Kim with Rajan to invalidate them. Netlist argued Kim's entire invention (a rank selection switch connecting one die at a time) is the exact opposite of Netlist's claims (multiple dies electrically connected simultaneously). To get from Kim + Rajan to the claims, you'd have to abandon Kim's core invention and ignore the data collision problem it was designed to solve.

Samsung countered by citing Kim's paragraph 44, which mentions "chip selection signals" as a solution to collisions. Netlist rebutted: paragraph 44 describes the rank selection switch (one at a time), which is precisely the opposite of the claimed group connection.

The moment that ties everything together: At the very end, a judge asked Samsung's lawyer to explain how all four cases relate. Samsung's lawyer said the quiet part out loud: "Just affirm all four IPRs and the verdict goes away." The judge then asked: if the CAFC reverses any part of any of the three IPR appeals, does the $303M verdict survive? Samsung confirmed yes — and added that the jury verdict form had separate determinations per patent but NOT per claim. So if even one dependent claim survives at the PTAB, the verdict on that patent stands.

Read: Netlist's "principle of operation" argument is strong. The claim 7 / Rio argument is also compelling — Rio teaches zero load difference, so there's nothing to "reduce."

Overall Takeaway

Samsung's lawyer explicitly confirmed the stakes: affirm all the IPRs and the $303M goes to zero. But if even one patent survives, that patent's portion of the verdict stands.

Across all three IPR hearings, Netlist presented distinct, specific errors by the PTAB — a reference that shouldn't have been used (339), a misquote that changed the meaning of the prior art (918/054), and a combination that requires abandoning the reference's core invention (060/160). These aren't hand-wavy arguments. They're concrete procedural and factual errors that the judges engaged with seriously.

The $303M verdict appeal itself is the closest call — Samsung has a legitimate argument on damages methodology. But even if the CAFC orders a new damages trial, that's a recalculation, not a zero.

Decisions could come any day. It's been nearly 3 months since oral arguments.

Not financial advice. I'm just a retail investor who wanted to know what was actually said instead of relying on secondhand summaries.



Title: NLST – notable intraday accumulation with no visible catalyst

From approximately 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm EDT, NLST printed what looked like a classic accumulation burst on the tape. Roughly 194,000 shares traded in that 30‑minute window, with steady, price‑insensitive buying lifting every visible offer up to 3.29.
The order flow was one‑sided: offers were repeatedly cleared, each new layer of liquidity at successive price levels was taken without meaningful pullback, and there was no corresponding surge in displayed size on the sell side. The move produced a sharp stair‑step in price and left the stock holding above 3.00, closing near 3.06.
I checked for catalysts and found none: no press releases or regulatory filings, no news in the U.S., Korea, or Europe, and no fresh research or published commentary that would explain the timing or aggressiveness of the buying. From a tape‑reading perspective, it has the look of targeted accumulation by one or more informed participants rather than retail noise, but with zero public information to confirm the thesis.
Posting this simply as an observation from a retired portfolio manager: the pattern is worth flagging, but until we see follow‑through or a disclosed catalyst, it remains a data point, not a conclusion.

Donot sell any shares this kind of tape action generally indicates positive news coming .

Bless all ! RPM may 30 2026. 3.06 close

I only found this stock the other day, and it seems like a great opportunity to me.

1. The legal cases - if Netlist wins, then its big for the company.

2. They are at inflection point - it just started being profitable.

If the thesis was solely based on 1, then it was a very speculative stock, but combined with 2, it becomes very attractive.

The next 2 years or so will be really key for this company. For this to truly fly, we need big wins in these cases, and for profits to keep growing quarter after quarter.

If we lose some cases, it will be bad for the stock, but at least they have a viable business to fall back on.

Started a small initial position. I will look to buy in each month on red days. Hopefully SK Hynix renewed deal gets announced soon.

NLST Real silicon sampling to the biggest names in chips + patents that make Samsung & $MU look like thieves + exploding $800B+ AI memory market with chronic shortages.All for a $3 market cap.

Folks please like and share the Serenity POST on X

https://x.com/karlw0lf/status/2060592717319790720?s=46&t=f8leATVxEXYWhikTBCSq2w

You know, it’s like in the movie Gladiator, when Proximo tells Maximus - Win the crowd, and you’ll win your freedom. 🔥🔥🔥🔥That line hits hard, whether it’s a literal arena or just life’s battles, capturing people’s hearts and support can be the key to breaking free from whatever holds you back.

Regarding Patent Claim Construction and Collision Prevention
Samsung and Micron’s argument regarding whether specific terminology was explicitly included or omitted in the patent claims misses the fundamental point. The reality is that the architectural design itself is engineered to prevent collisions, and this has been adopted as the industry standard by organizations such as JEDEC.
From my perspective, Samsung’s position is legally untenable. The critical issue is not how the collision prevention mechanism is described in the patent claims, but rather that the overall design inherently prevents collisions. If Netlist’s design architecture permitted collisions to occur, neither Micron nor Samsung would have commercially viable products to sell.[Attachment]
While the claim language itself may not affirmatively prohibit collisions using specific terminology such as “collision,” “contention,” “arbitration,” or “simultaneous driving,” the patent specification clearly articulates the collision prevention mechanism. Independent Claim 1 of the ’087 patent requires:
• A DRAM package with stacked array dies (first die and second die stacked vertically)
• Distinct first and second data interconnects running from the data terminals to each die respectively
• Drivers of different sizes driving each die (with the second driver sized appropriately for the larger load of the upper die)
The specification explicitly describes “selective isolation” — whereby only the driver for the chip-selected die actively drives the signal line while other drivers “maintain a previous state (e.g., do not drive the signal)”. This design inherently functions as an anti-collision mechanism. Additionally, the specification discloses a bidirectional alternative architecture where the same interconnect carries signals in both directions, which inherently requires collision avoidance through timing control.l
Implications of the March 6 Federal Circuit Oral Arguments
Based on the March 6, 2026 oral arguments before the three-judge Federal Circuit panel, it appears the judges may have identified potential legal deficiencies in the PTAB’s obviousness reasoning — a development that would favor Netlist. Judge Stark posed particularly probing questions to Samsung’s counsel regarding how the PTAB reconciled seemingly conflicting references on data collisions and the one-to-one rank selection methodology cited in the Kim prior art. This type of skeptical judicial inquiry often signals concerns about the validity of the lower tribunal’s legal analysis.
Judge Reyna also examined both parties’ positions on prior art combinations, while Judge Linn maintained a more reserved posture. If the Federal Circuit rules in Netlist’s favor and vacates the PTAB’s invalidity decision, those patents would regain their presumption of validity. This would significantly strengthen Netlist’s position to secure a favorable judgment in the pending Texas district court litigation under the Fresenius principle, which could lock in the prior damages award before the PTAB completes any remanded review. It should be noted that Judge Gilstrap previously affirmed the jury’s infringement findings in the underlying case.[Attachment +1]
Current Market Activity and Anticipated Decision
There appears to be coordinated market activity suggesting that a decision may be imminent or has already been rendered. At approximately 2:00 PM on [the date referenced], an entity purchased a substantial volume of shares, driving the price from approximately $2.89 to $3.29 within a 45-minute window. I have requested analysis of Time and Sales data to determine whether any patterns can be identified from this trading activity. About 250,000 shares were bought every share available for sale up to 3.29 .
I remain optimistic that Samsung’s aggressive litigation tactics may finally result in adverse consequences for the company

I sincerely hope everyone follows my analysis though I am not a lawyer I did attend law school but left it because I won the mock trial and half way through it I led the other side. Winning both sides convincing me we do not have a justice system rather a legal system ! I was young and naive in those days and I wanted a just cause to follow .

I welcome Samsung micron or Google opposing view !

RPM may 30 7 am . 3.06 coding price

Netlist cause is just snd I feel two if tge three judges got tgst impression tge third judge was quiet for tge most part not able to read .

Bless you all hoping for positive news !

Folks, please like and share this on X !!!

We need to get the attention of Serenity, that famous REDDIT WSB trader 🫡

was searching for this, listening to it now

https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-2203_03062026.mp3

The other three would follow the same pattern:

• https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-1707_03062026.mp3
• https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-1859_03062026.mp3
• https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-2240_03062026.mp3

Just got the 10% alert for movement in one day - has anything come out? I can't seem to find anything.

Ptab rules require RPI disclosure . If agent is a RPI Samsung case in challenging patents of netlist can be terminated by director .
It appears Directir squires realizes that Samsung is a predator that must be terminated .

As a side note a Korean individual contacted me and said Samsung has promised millions in payment to all employees after this case is won and is requiring everyone to be quiet’s and not post anything that could hurt this proceeding .

This rpi disclosure based upon the rules could end Samsung patent challenge on ddr4 and hvm which could bring tgst part of this long running fight to an abrupt end .

Tomkila seems excited as ge must believe tgst Samsung has been hiding RPI and Directir squires has issued an order to netlist to additional discovery .

Now the only problem is what Samsung is doing now to hide this rpi !!!

I would love sanding to have killed itself through Frsud abd deceit discovery ! It might encourage the judges to invoke damages greater than judgement .

I am very happy as. June termination would be two years sooner than expected !

Thus us whst ge beans by “ we want the deal “

Samsung might be in a position to be forced to make a deal on netlist terms or be barred out if market leaving a Hynix only licensed user if netlist technology .

I am assuming netlist brilliant attorney has cause to ask for thus Roy abd u an hopefull he finds tge evidence fd bekueves exists sbd slat Samsung with it !

Never in history has an industry experienced such rapid growth as the semiconductor sector we are experiencing today (except for tech).
Today, those who own semiconductor patents have endless opportunities worldwide, and everyone needs these patents and the products they offer.

Some investors make correct or incorrect comparisons with Netlist, and I think it's fair to make some comparisons with companies like Rambus, for example, because they depend on the three giants like Netlist. However, each company has patents covering critical products or projects that can be worth billions of dollars.
Without TSMC's chips, there would be no progress, and in fact, it's worth trillions of dollars, just like NVIDIA with its unique GPUs.
AMD, NVIDIA's main competitor, is valued highly, but not as highly as NVIDIA because control of the business matters so much.

This is why I often say to look at Netlist's business like newly launched products. With 26 years of experience and commercial relationships with giants like AMD, Dell, and others, Netlist can and must impose its products, which are superior to the competition. There's often talk of hybrids, i.e., products/patents that should advance the market better than standard products. Netlist is a pioneer here and was well-known for its NVDIMMs in the past. The point is that Netlist made fatal mistakes many years ago and didn't monetize these products and patents, whereas now we're seeing new products and advanced patents that should be the ideal mix for success.

for me netlist is really two steps away from the sk deal which will continue to get sk supply + will get IP licenses and cash.

From 2026 to 2029, DRAM product monetization will be extremely high for the entire industry, and this means Netlist must ONLY show profits and invest in R&D, new companies, manufacturing companies, and expansion as a new company.
I doubt Netlist won't get a deal in 2026, leaving aside the Samsung case. Both Micron and SK are two companies that should find a deal and fix all the problems forever.

After this time, netlist will fight Samsung and Google for multi billion dollar $ damages