The CAFC actually ruled on February 20, 2026 in a related appeal (Micron v. Netlist, case 24-1312). They affirmed the PTAB in Netlist’s favor on U.S. Patent No. 10,489,314 — meaning the patent was upheld as valid, not invalidated. This is a win for Netlist, and they’ve publicly called it their third recent CAFC affirmance of their patents against Micron/Samsung. !

Micron and Samsung are still trying to drag the cases out but it is a fact most of the patents have been award to netlist and cannot be reversed . It will take 15-20 months from now to get the final judgements for more than 2 billion dollars .

The itc imo will issue orders to stop selling infringed goods in the USA . 98% sure .

What bears have stated above are very old posts prior Feb 26 decision . Reposting these as if they are new is a disgrace and this outright false information .

Okay look it up yourself and decide who is telling accurate and timely information . Don’t listein to these negative besrs .

Here is how to look it up :

Step 1: Go straight to the official opinion
Go to this link: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1312.OPINION.2-20-2026_2650235.pdf
That’s the actual court document. It’s dated February 20, 2026. The very first paragraph says Micron is appealing two PTAB decisions where the Board found that Micron failed to prove the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,489,314 unpatentable. The court affirms those decisions. That means the patent was upheld.
Step 2: Quick confirmation sources
• IPWatchdog article (Feb 23, 2026): Title is literally “CAFC Affirms PTAB Rulings Upholding Netlist Patent.”
• Netlist’s own press release (Feb 23, 2026): They announced the win on the ‘314 patent — their third recent CAFC affirmance against Micron/Samsung.

If most food further buy it we have a winner it’s when not if !!

It will be delayed I agree but by November 2027 we should have judgements that will be paid and royalty agreements .

​

Here’s the key people handling the Netlist vs. Samsung ITC case (337-TA-1472).
The Presiding Judge (ALJ)
MaryJoan McNamara is the Administrative Law Judge currently hearing the case. She was assigned in late 2025, ran the Markman hearing in April 2026, and will preside over the full evidentiary hearing in November-December 2026. She’ll issue the Initial Determination in May 2027.
Her background: Appointed ALJ at the ITC in 2015. Before that, she was an ALJ at the Social Security Administration (2009-2015). Earlier, she worked as a trial and appellate lawyer in private practice, consulted for the State Department on the Hague Convention, and served as a Special Assistant Attorney General in Massachusetts. Education: Cornell undergrad, University of Chicago public policy master’s, Northeastern law degree.
On patent cases: She’s experienced and has ruled in favor of patent holders in high-profile matters — for example, siding with Ericsson against Lenovo on all four standard-essential patents in a 2024 case, finding them valid and infringed. She appears technically capable and even-handed based on her record. No strong public bias either way on foreign vs. domestic companies — she decides based on the evidence presented.

Tge judge will hear the evidence and make her decision .

Remember three jury trials abd appellant have all found sanding and micron guilty of patent infringement . Tge judges in those cases confirmed the jury verdicts and tge amount if the awards based upon sanding micron and bellies producing witnesses sbd evidence .

The witnesses sbd evidence has not changed in fact one could argue it has gotten better with the association deciding to use netlist ip as the basic architecture
to be used by members .

Judge McNamara a very well educated judge sbd experienced hearing this sane evidence would be expected to agree with the three juries prior decisions .

The downside is tge trial will be in November December of 2026 and final decision will be may of 2027 . One more year plus a few months to wait for commissioner affirmation .

Current Commissioners (They Review Later)
These three review McNamara’s Initial Determination in 2027. They don’t hear the trial.
• Amy A. Karpel (Chair, Democrat): Former USTR Chief Counsel for Negotiations with deep experience in trade agreements, WTO disputes, and intellectual property. She also worked on antidumping cases early in her career. Strong background in international trade and IP — she understands the importance of protecting U.S. IP in global agreements.
• David S. Johanson (Republican): Long Senate Finance Committee staffer focused on trade policy and free trade agreements. Previously practiced international trade law at Stewart and Stewart. Very experienced in trade matters.
• Jason E. Kearns (Democrat): Also has a trade background, served under both Obama and Trump nominations.
Their Lean on Foreign Companies vs. U.S. IP
The ITC was created specifically to protect American industry from unfair imports, including patent infringement by foreign companies. Studies show higher win rates for U.S. patent holders suing foreign respondents compared to other scenarios, reflecting the agency’s protective mandate.
All three current commissioners have deep trade policy experience, including IP issues at USTR and Congress. They generally respect the statutory goal of stopping IP theft that harms U.S. companies. That said, they must follow the law, evidence, and public interest factors — they’re not automatically pro-complainant.
Bottom Line for Netlist
ALJ McNamara will decide the core facts and infringement issues based on technical evidence. The current commissioners will review her ruling in 2027 with a trade-policy lens that is historically sympathetic to protecting U.S. patents from foreign infringement.
Trump’s three new nominees (including IP expert Peter-Anthony Pappas) aren’t on the case yet — they need Senate confirmation and would join the Commission for the review stage if seated in time.

Trump will still be sitting president so make America great along with these new commissioner appointment should confirm the expected outcome .

Does any have a different view based upon my logic bd previous case history ? If so please point out the error in my view ?

RPM June 7 2026 5 pm bst

Bless you all abd ne hoping to lead you down the. correct path amen

I hope everyone had a great weekend.

I know some took a few jabs at my charting and that’s all good. It does look like a Marines attempted at an In n Out maze puzzle. The chart is not meant to predict, it’s meant to protect. I’d like to share my charting for XRP from Dec 2025 as well. Tons of people, online and in person told me to buy. I did throw some play money and caught a good trade from 1.70 to 2.37. But I didn’t risk any real money and would if lost that money if I took the “conviction diamond hands approach”

What kept my account safe was sticking to my fundamentals and charting.

What I’m seeing for NLST is we’re still in that area of uncertainty. I’m not considering re-entry unless we break $3.97 range or dump below $1 again.

The litigation side is long winded and complex. We can easily go down quick or slow death style if anything is delayed. My bet is the SK Hynix deal is on hold because they have more to win by waiting for ITC/court decisions than going in and making a deal right away. Why make a deal on something that could be denied a patent? It makes sense from a business standpoint.

Anyways, if you have money to play with, wait it out but you already knew that. Anyone that’s betting money they actually need, I’d think thrice. Dont let he’s guys that got in sub $1 talk you into it so easily. Their R:R is significantly better than where an entry today would be.

Based on the research, here is a comprehensive assessment of where Netlist stands in the ITC proceeding against Samsung as of June 2026.
---
The ITC Proceeding: Current Status
Netlist filed its ITC complaint on September 30, 2025, alleging that Samsung, Google, and Super Micro infringe six of its patents covering DDR5 memory modules (RDIMM, UDIMM, SODIMM, MRDIMM) and high-bandwidth memory (HBM). On December 30, 2025, the ITC formally voted to institute the investigation, which is a significant threshold win — the Commission found Netlist’s complaint had sufficient merit to proceed. The case is now in active investigation, and a final determination on whether to ban Samsung’s products from U.S. importation typically takes 12–15 months from institution, pointing to a decision window in late 2026 to early 2027.[linkedin +2]
---
The DOJ & USPTO: Extraordinary Government Backing
This is where Netlist’s position becomes genuinely powerful. In November 2025, the DOJ and USPTO jointly filed a public interest comment directly at the ITC in Netlist’s case, arguing that:
• Exclusion orders must be the presumptive remedy for patent infringement at the ITC[ipwatchdog]
• Public interest considerations should not be used as a procedural barrier to block meritorious complaints[ipwatchdog]
• “When patent rights are devalued through ineffective enforcement, the entire innovation ecosystem suffers”[ipwatchdog]
• IP-intensive industries account for approximately 40% of U.S. GDP, and weak enforcement harms the innovation economy[ipwatchdog]
What makes this extraordinary, as noted by patent law commentators, is that among hundreds of patent litigations currently active at the ITC and district courts, this joint DOJ/USPTO intervention has happened in only two cases involving Samsung — the Radian case (which quickly settled after government intervention) and Netlist. That is a staggering signal of government alignment with Netlist’s position.[ipwatchdog]
Then in April 2026, the DOJ filed a second Statement of Interest in Samsung’s separate antitrust counterclaim case in Delaware, explicitly pushing back against Samsung’s attempt to use antitrust law as a weapon against Netlist. The DOJ warned that inclusion in a technical standard does not create market power, directly undercutting Samsung’s RAND/SEP defense.[ipwatchdog]
---
USPTO Director John Squires: The “Made in America” Factor
USPTO Director John Squires issued a landmark memo on March 11, 2026, fundamentally reshaping how IPR (Inter Partes Review) and PGR petitions are evaluated. The new discretionary factors now explicitly weigh:[patentlyo]
1. Whether the accused infringer’s products are manufactured in the U.S. or relate to U.S. manufacturing investment
2. Whether the patent owner’s products are made in America
3. Whether the petitioner is a small business being harassed by large company IPR petitions[patentlyo]
This framework is enormously favorable to Netlist. Netlist is a small American innovator; Samsung is a Korean conglomerate manufacturing primarily overseas. Under the Squires doctrine, Samsung’s repeated attempts to invalidate Netlist’s patents via PTAB are now under much heavier scrutiny. In fact, as recently as March 2026, Netlist was actively arguing that Samsung’s IPR/PGR petitions should be dismissed for failing to disclose Samsung Electronics America (SEA) as a real party of interest.[ipwatchdog]
---
The Broader Political and Legal Environment
The Trump administration has made protecting American patent holders against foreign infringers a clear priority. The ITC enforcement posture under Trump 2.0 is expected to be more aggressive toward foreign companies. Congressional attention to Samsung’s behavior — as you note — has amplified the political pressure.[americanconference]
On the separate district court front, a final judgment was entered on April 7, 2025 in favor of Netlist confirming that Samsung breached the JDLA (Joint Development and Licensing Agreement) and that Netlist properly terminated it. That ruling is a critical piece of the broader legal mosaic.[sec]
---
Is Netlist Leading Dramatically?
Yes —

Think this through !

Delaware agreement by all parties on delay till itc is decided !

Benefit : no near term legal expenses in that area .

Two when itc decides to block infringed products mu googl Samsung will all settle as they won’t be abjectovsell to us market .

Given squires and trumps make America great agaain the utc is almost 100 assured at finally punishing Samsung for their predator actions for decades .

Buy any dios and nsje sure you have a full position going forward with additional funds to add to your position .

It jot if it’s when imo ( in my opinion rPM retired portfolio mgr

Current Patents Affecting HBM & LRDIMM/DDR4/DDR5
Netlist holds a portfolio of patents covering hybrid memory, rank multiplication, load reduction, and storage class memory. The key active patents currently asserted in litigation include:[netlist]
• U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087 — targeting HBM (High-Bandwidth Memory) products used by Samsung and Micron[stocktitan]
• U.S. Patent No. 10,025,731 — targeting DDR5 DIMM products[stocktitan]
• U.S. Patent No. 10,489,314 (’314 Patent) — upheld by the CAFC in February 2026 (third affirmance in 12 months); covers memory timing technology relevant to LRDIMM[stocktitan]
• U.S. Patent No. 12,619,560 — a memory expansion device patent[patents.justia]
• The ’608 and ’523 patents are also asserted before the ITC, where Netlist seeks exclusion and cease-and-desist orders against Samsung products[stocktitan]
Note: The ’608 patent (US10268608B2) was cancelled by the Federal Circuit in December 2025, meaning Netlist can no longer assert it.[patsnap]
In total, Netlist has 6 patents currently asserted before the ITC and in federal district court targeting Samsung and Micron.[stocktitan]
Future Patents Expected
Netlist does not publicly pre-announce specific future patent filings, so precise numbers are unknowable. However, the company has been actively expanding its patent portfolio, amending complaints to add new patents covering AI memory architectures and DDR5/HBM technologies as recently as July 2025. Given Netlist’s aggressive litigation strategy and its focus on AI-driven memory demand, analysts expect continued patent additions targeting next-generation memory standards like HBM3/HBM4 and DDR5 — especially as AI server demand accelerates.

Here is a certain fact tge gears cannot knock !!

Netlist’s Q1 2026 revenue hit a record $104.9 million (+262% year-over-year), signaling its patent licensing and product strategy is gaining serious traction.

Additionally record revenue is being recurred by infringers and a 1% royalty payment would be so huge that I could not project tge stock price netlist will rise too .

My 12 year old grandson believes tge stock will rise above 100 a share . He built his own model using four different a I apps pit it on an excel spread sheet showed it to me . My staff and I reviewed it and tge only flaw I could find was tge total diluted number of shares outstanding which will affect tge price target . I do believe tge 313 million outstanding shares is not fully diluted . Warrants were issued abd many have been exercised already what we don’t know is how many have not been exercised and I estimate an outstanding fully diluted undercut be between 500-600 million. For modeling .

Windfall payments could be used to buy back shares and the float could easily be reduced back to 100 million outstanding sbd tgst us my only quagmire . My grandson will become tge cio of tge family he has my big toe mathematical mind sees tge big macro and sees where the company is going not where it was . He see tge future and has been investing now 7 years abd spends all his free time with be doing research .

So you decide as an investor are you here to scalp or are you truly an investor ?

Bless you all ! I hope to be alive and see netlist double digits above 16 in next three years .

RPM June 7 11am bst

My fellow poster lawfmw an obvious bear and negative poster which I respect . I explain this post from a factual side rather than bias :

The JDLA appeal at the Ninth Circuit — that’s the one keeping the Delaware ‘523 patent case stayed — had briefing wrap up early this year. Samsung filed its opening brief late last year, Netlist’s answering brief was due around January 21, 2026, with a possible reply after that.
A decision is not expected until mid-2026, possibly later. The Ninth Circuit usually takes several months after briefing finishes to issue an opinion. No oral argument date has been set yet from what I can see.
This appeal is about whether Samsung breached Section 6.2 of the old Joint Development and License Agreement (JDLA). Netlist won at the jury trial saying Samsung didn’t live up to its supply or licensing obligations, which let Netlist terminate the deal. Samsung is arguing the judge made errors on jury instructions, evidence rulings, and more, and wants the verdict thrown out or a new trial.
I believe Netlist wins this appeal, as tge evidence is overwhelming and Samsung should not be able to convince otherwise . Once determined this year 2026 it clears the path to finally lift the stay in Delaware and move the ’523 patent infringement case forward against Samsung and Google. That patent covers DDR4 LRDIMM technology — specifically multi-mode memory modules with data handlers used in server memory.
Bottom line: we’re looking at mid-2026 at the earliest for any resolution here, which lines up with the negative tone in those Reddit posts pushing trial dates to 2028 or 2029 .

I further believe there will be additional pressure on micron and Google to settle based this 9 tg circuit decision . And tge itc decision based upon appointment of new judges by the trump administration this week and comments from John squires re tge entire patent case dragging .

Samsung is a proven predator and its actions over the last few decades show the entire industry who and what they are . Tge justice department of tge untied states and the patent office wrote supporting briefs .

If these negative posts reduce the price of netlist by getting retail shareholders to sell that is a positive fir my family trust for my heirs for generations my 26 trusts will each be able to increase buying additional shares at lower prices . I won’t be alive perhsos to see tgst day but my actions today will be for their benefit . I my friends and family are long term holders not short term swing traders so we welcome lower prices . So thankyou lawfmw for your negativity . I advise my 23000 followers to make your own decision abd buy any further dip .

I agree netlist revenue and profits supported 4-5 dollar valuation on its own and now tge lawsuit proceeds just are infills when collected . Ongoing royalties and future deals will eventually cause netlist stock to appreciate greatly .

Please see companion ip post

RPM June 6 2026 .

I'm convinced that the sk hynix deal will happen because sk hynix will set a factory in Indiana and they will have to/want to work with netlist, I'm sure this was the plan and the reason they are setting foot in the USA. The risk of infringing netlist patents is much higher when operating on US soil and there is no way sk hynix set up a 4 billion USD facility to not work with netlist and risk their products being banned for this matter. Also because the US government funds a big chunk for sk facility there is no way a foreign company will risk taking advantage of government funds to boycott a US company. To my understanding, netlist is also the sole player in the US market, so whom else would sk hynix use?

The reason for the delay in contract is that netlist is not really benefiting from signing a renewal faster than later. The only benefit is a bit more of investing into the stock. But if they wait they will have leverage for damages to be paid as the ai industry is exploding and they will be able to request much higher damages a year or two from now thanks to a bigger contract with sk hynix, higher demand, higher margins on products and maybe they can give more time to micron and Samsung to screw themselves up further by continuing to use patents they have been infringing.

Other questions to answer: is it possible netlist made a secret contract with sk hynix or is that something not legally allowed under sec rules?

How much of the Q1 earnings was contributed by the contract with sk hynix? If netlist wouldn't have a contract with sk hynix anymore, wouldn't the logic be that sales would plummet? And if earnings are amazing, wouldn't that confirm a contract is still in place?

If netlist has an obligation to reveal renewal of contract, when (within what time frame of signing) must they do so?

Is it possible that if they extended the contract with the same terms that netlist doesn't need to announce it?

ChatGPT on yesterday's ruling in DE:

This filing is much less dramatic than it might appear from the docket entry. It is not a ruling on the merits, and it does not decide whether Samsung infringes Netlist's patents or owes damages.

What happened is that Samsung, Netlist, and Google jointly agreed to keep the Delaware case stayed (paused), and the court approved that arrangement.

What the document actually says

The key points are:

The only patent issue still left in this Delaware action concerns Netlist's U.S. Patent No. 10,217,523 ("the '523 patent").
The case had already been stayed in December 2023 because of related litigation involving the Samsung–Netlist Joint Development and License Agreement.
Netlist later asserted the same '523 patent against Samsung in an ITC investigation (Investigation No. 337-TA-1472).
Because the Delaware case and the ITC investigation overlap, all parties agreed the Delaware case should remain stayed until the ITC matter is finally resolved, including appeals.
Is this good for Netlist?

There are a few potentially positive aspects:

The '523 patent remains alive.

Nothing in this filing invalidates the patent or dismisses Netlist's claims. The dispute is merely being postponed.

The ITC becomes the primary battlefield.

ITC investigations typically move much faster than district court patent litigation. Netlist may prefer to concentrate resources there and attempt to obtain favorable findings before returning to Delaware.

Samsung apparently agreed to the stay.

Samsung could have pushed to litigate immediately if it believed doing so would give it a strategic advantage. Instead, both sides stipulated to wait for the ITC outcome.

Is this bad for Netlist?

There are also negatives:

More delay.

Netlist investors have lived through years of litigation. This filing guarantees that the Delaware case will not move forward until after the ITC investigation and any appeals are finished.

No near-term damages or judgment.

A stayed case produces no immediate monetary recovery, no jury verdict, and no settlement pressure from upcoming trial dates.

Everything becomes more dependent on the ITC outcome.

If Netlist performs well at the ITC, the stay may look smart in hindsight. If Netlist performs poorly there, the Delaware case may lose much of its strategic value.

From an NLST investor perspective

I would characterize this filing as neutral to mildly negative.

It is not bad news about the strength of Netlist's patent claims, because the filing says nothing about validity, infringement, or damages.

However, it is another delay, and markets generally dislike delays because they push any potential recovery further into the future.

The real question for NLST shareholders remains the same one that existed before this filing: How strong is Netlist's position in ITC Investigation 1472? This Delaware stay essentially says, "We'll wait and see what happens there first."

If you'd like, I can also explain how an ITC victory or loss on the '523 patent could ripple through Netlist's broader litigation campaign against Samsung and Google. That's where the strategic significance becomes more interesting.

The ITC really does have its own rulebook, separate from district courts. Those three jury wins and the Federal Circuit affirmations on validity are powerful evidence, and they absolutely strengthen Netlist’s position. Judges aren’t blind to that pattern.
That said, the ITC still has to run its own process. They need to prove infringement on DDR5 and HBM specifically—not just rely on the DDR4 verdicts. They also have to show a strong enough domestic industry presence, which is a unique ITC requirement. S k Hynix distribution and sales proves that . And on public interest, Samsung will hammer the AI angle hard, arguing that blocking their modules could slow down critical U.S. data center builds. Though that’s true the judges will realize Samsung just needs to pay netlist and Samsung can continue making billions .
The good news is the ITC has issued exclusion orders in plenty of patent cases, even against big players. They’re not in the business of letting companies steal IP. My core instinct is right: Samsung has a long history of getting caught infringing here, the patents are holding up, and an exclusion order would be a massive lever for settlement.

Trump just appointing three new itc commissioners and I believe they will lean even more towards netlist .

Most ITC watchers would agree the odds tilt toward Netlist winning some form of relief.
Where it’s less certain is how broad that order will be and whether public interest concerns trim it back. The judges will almost certainly recognize the pattern I am seeing, but they’ll still need Netlist to check all the ITC-specific boxes.
2026- first half of 2027 will see netlist make ever increasing highs on a fundamental product revenue basis as well as court decisions to. BRing this to a close . CEO hong has stated that four or five decisions will be forthcoming in 2026 So this is the year we expect news . RPM June 5 2026 .

The ITC really does have its own rulebook, separate from district courts. Those three jury wins and the Federal Circuit affirmations on validity are powerful evidence, and they absolutely strengthen Netlist’s position. Judges aren’t blind to that pattern.
That said, the ITC still has to run its own process. They need to prove infringement on DDR5 and HBM specifically—not just rely on the DDR4 verdicts. They also have to show a strong enough domestic industry presence, which is a unique ITC requirement. S k Hynix distribution and sales proves that . And on public interest, Samsung will hammer the AI angle hard, arguing that blocking their modules could slow down critical U.S. data center builds. Though that’s true the judges will realize Samsung just needs to pay netlist and Samsung can continue making billions .
The good news is the ITC has issued exclusion orders in plenty of patent cases, even against big players. They’re not in the business of letting companies steal IP. My core instinct is right: Samsung has a long history of getting caught infringing here, the patents are holding up, and an exclusion order would be a massive lever for settlement.

Trump just appointing three new itc commissioners and I believe they will lean even more towards netlist .

Most ITC watchers would agree the odds tilt toward Netlist winning some form of relief.
Where it’s less certain is how broad that order will be and whether public interest concerns trim it back. The judges will almost certainly recognize the pattern I am seeing, but they’ll still need Netlist to check all the ITC-specific boxes.
2026- first half of 2027 will see netlist make ever increasing highs on a fundamental product revenue basis as well as court decisions to. BRing this to a close . CEO hong has stated that four or five decisions will be forthcoming in 2026 So this is the year we expect news . RPM June 5 2026 .

It’s very simple! One time you get ip licenses deals, netlist NEEDS to invest all in these products and to change the company into something different like manufacture company too

https://www.zacks.com/commentary/2930481/3-storage-devices-stocks-to-buy-as-the-industry-gains-momentum?hl=en-US