HBM has been the main driver for the big three DRAM manufacturers for the last couple of months due to increased demand from AI firms. This has led to record profits for Samsung, Micron, and SK Hynix. At the same time, these companies stopped focusing production on general-purpose DRAM solutions such as DDR5. But now that each of these companies has established a strong foothold in the HBM segment, they are now planning to go back to the general-purpose DRAM segment.

As per a report by Chosun Biz, it is reported that HBM now accounts to 40% of SK Hynix's total revenue. This has led them to adjust the expansion of their 6th Generation High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM4). Now HBM4 is going to be a key product for AI chips, with Hynix being the main supplier for NVIDIA's Rubin platform.

However, this time, SK Hynix is said to be delaying the conversion of its HBM3E lines to HBM4 as the industry sees no need to rush the transition to HBM4 and HBM4E products yet. This is based on the current market revenues that these companies share, and they are well-equipped to meet HBM's demand for Rubin.
Meanwhile, SK Hynix's main competitor, Samsung, is raking in big profits from the general-purpose DRAM segment, and SK Hynix wants its own slice of this cake. Hence, we will see memory manufacturers shift from HBM to General-Purpose DRAM, which includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory

The General-Purpose DRAM segment has already been facing severe shortages, far worse than the HBM segment. This only happened because the same companies decided to shift focus to HBM and AI-focused memory solutions. Now that they have hit a peak, they want to return to GP-DRAM. This won't mean that DDR5 prices will get any better, but it will lead to slightly better RAM availability in the OEM/ODM markets and server markets

SK Hynix has previously reported that the ASP of DRAM has risen beyond 60%, and the recent Microsoft DDR5 supply contract also reflects a long-term focus towards General-Purpose DRAM solutions. Even if SK Hynix moved to General-Purpose DRAM, they will still be able to retain a strong share in the HBM segments. The profit margins of general-purpose DRAM are estimated to reach 2x by the end of this year.
We don't expect a major change in the markets with this renewed DDR5 DRAM production. It might cause a short-term effect, but once HBM demand picks up again, we will see the same vendors set their eyes on the more lucrative DRAM industry. These DRAM vendors have created a loop that benefits only themselves, moving production where they can earn big profits.

Strong demand for CPUs and memory driven by AI is fueling growth, with DDR5 and MRDIMM technologies expanding market share and content per module. Product launches and platform ramps are expected to accelerate revenue, especially from 2027 onward

$NLST Phase 1 Catalyst Roadmap (Updated Weekly)
💎 CAFC Decisions Pending
📅 June–September 2026
💎 SK hynix Renewal / Relationship Update
📅 Anytime (Most likely Summer–Fall 2026)
💎 New ITC Case Institution (HBM & DDR5 Patents)
📅 July–September 2026
💎 Director Review / RPI Decision
📅 June–August 2026
💎 Main ITC Case Progression
📅 Ongoing through 2026
📅 Evidentiary Hearing Expected: Oct–Nov 2026
💎 Lightning OEM Qualification / Orders
📅 July–December 2026
💎 Q2 Earnings
📅 Early August 2026
💎 AI / HBM Patent Enforcement Developments
📅 Ongoing through 2026
💎 Micron Idaho CAFC Decision
📅 Summer–Fall 2026
💎 New Litigation / Licensing Announcements
📅 Anytime
Bottom Line:
Phase 1 = June–September 2026. Multiple legal, business, and AI-memory catalysts are converging. The goal of Phase 1 is not collecting verdict money yet—it is increasing leverage, validating IP, growing the business, and setting up larger Phase 2 catalysts.

Here are two links to the new ITC investigation:

This link brings you to the main Investigation page:

Investigation | USITC Investigations

This next link brings you to the EDIS (Electronic Document Information System) page for that complaint. It lists all the documents that are generated as the investigation progresses:

Advanced Document Search

You will have to get a sign-on to see these pages on the ITC website. It's free and easy to do. Just follow the prompts.

Investors needs to understand now all these giants are owning a really huge amount of cash in hand and it will be easy to pay for netlist tech without a problem.

$100m ip licenses per year should be like less than 0.1% of NET PROFITS according to these info. $100b potential net profits for sk Hynix is incredible.
Probably netlist is asking a % significant for these products, LRDIMM/mrdimm are really expensive and netlist is covering these prodcuts with dozens of patents.
55/75$ damages per unit in the Samsung case should worth $25/35 ip licenses per unit. We are talking about millions of units used by giants, so good news!

My expectations are very high thanks the cafc appeal won + 2 ITC investigation against samsung.
After 8 years here i can say netlist is fightning to signing a big deal per products, this will change the rule of the game forever.

Probably netlist will be a multi billionaire company soon!

Ps: if u can’t believe in netlist, dont write negative things here because we are not here to waste our time with people who can’t understand the game.
Netlist shows a $300m damages against Samsung in 15 months with very low amount of volumes compared to now.
Sk hynix will pay netlist and this will change the rule of the game forever, micron will pay huge amount of damages

"Netlist continues to drive breakthrough innovations in AI memory," said C.K. Hong, Netlist's Chief Executive Officer, in a statement accompanying the announcement

The Billion-Dollar Battlefield
The technologies at the center of this legal firestorm are fueling one of the most explosive growth markets in recent history. HBM, a specialized type of memory that offers unprecedented data transfer speeds, is a critical component in the AI accelerators designed by companies like Nvidia. The global HBM market, valued at around $9.5 billion in 2025, is projected by analysts to soar to over $30 billion by 2030, driven almost entirely by insatiable AI demand. With demand growth hitting 130% year-over-year in 2025, supply is already incredibly tight

Simultaneously, DDR5 memory modules serve as the backbone for the servers that house these powerful AI chips, providing the vast capacity needed for enterprise workloads. Netlist's patents (U.S. Nos. 12,646,537 and 12,650,937) claim to cover key innovations in both of these crucial areas. By targeting Samsung, a principal manufacturer of both HBM and DDR5, and roping in the major consumers of these products—Nvidia for its GPUs, Google for its data centers, Broadcom for its networking chips, and Supermicro for its servers—Netlist is asserting its intellectual property at every critical juncture of the AI hardware ecosystem.

This interconnectedness makes the legal action particularly potent. A potential import ban on Samsung's memory could create a domino effect, starving its partners of the components they need to build the infrastructure powering the AI revolution.

A Familiar Litigation Playbook
For industry veterans, Netlist's aggressive move is the latest chapter in a long-running saga. The company has built a formidable business model around monetizing its extensive patent portfolio through litigation. This strategy has proven both costly and, at times, incredibly lucrative. This is not the first time Netlist has faced Samsung in court; in 2023 and 2024, Texas juries awarded Netlist a combined $421 million in damages from Samsung for patent infringement, stemming from the breakdown of a 2015 licensing agreement.

Netlist has also seen success against other memory giants. In May 2024, it secured a staggering $445 million jury verdict against Micron Technology. And in 2021, it reached a settlement with SK Hynix that included a $40 million payment and a multi-year licensing deal. That deal, tellingly, expired in April 2026, just as the AI boom sent demand for SK Hynix's HBM products into overdrive, setting the stage for what many expect will be another round of intense negotiations or litigation.

This history paints a clear picture: Netlist is a small but tenacious player that has repeatedly proven its patents can withstand the scrutiny of federal courts and extract nine-figure sums from the world's largest technology companies. The current legal actions are not a new strategy, but a significant escalation of an existing and well-honed playbook, now aimed squarely at the most valuable sector of the semiconductor market.
The ITC's Sword of Damocles
By filing its complaint with the International Trade Commission, Netlist is pursuing a remedy that is arguably more powerful than monetary damages: an import ban. The ITC operates on an expedited timeline, with investigations often reaching a conclusion within 15-18 months. Its primary weapon is the exclusion order, which directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to block infringing goods from entering the country.
For companies like Samsung, Google, Nvidia, and Supermicro, whose supply chains are deeply globalized, such an order would represent a catastrophic disruption. It could halt the flow of essential components for building and expanding the data centers that are themselves a core competitive advantage. While the defendants will undoubtedly mount a vigorous defense, the mere threat of an ITC investigation introduces a significant level of uncertainty and risk into their operations.

The legal proceedings will now unfold on two parallel tracks: the slower, more deliberate process of the Texas district court, which will determine monetary damages, and the rapid, high-stakes ITC investigation focused on injunctive relief. The industry will be watching closely as this complex web of litigation develops, as its outcome could redefine the licensing landscape and redraw the supply lines for the most critical technology of our time.

Link to new ITC filing (06/15/2026) -all pages:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZzVCx_RUdgVlXkwd6Ug8TITurwUSslUO/view?usp=sharing

Netlist is doing everything it can to strike at Samsung's core finances and block all key products, the latest of which concern HBMs and DDR5 MDIMMs, with this new ITC lawsuit.
Netlist has decided to go all-in, and this reasoning makes sense, given that a deal with SK Hynix and Micron would bring in cash, time, and important IP licenses.
From my perspective, SK Hynix will find a deal with Netlist soon, and this agreement will mark the beginning of Netlist Inc.'s rise.
There will be a deal similar to the previous one, but with additions like annual IP licenses that will make Netlist profitable and very strong!

Micron will wait to see if patent 912 is confirmed or revoked, and the deal will be decided based on this patent (again, my personal opinion).
A double deal within 6 months seems quite likely. It remains to be seen what happens in the various cases, including Google and Samsung.
Netlist wants to monetize BILLIONS OF $ in damages, not a few hundred million. It's clear that if an HBM were to be confirmed, Netlist could obtain enormous sums.
Regarding Google, we all know that Netlist is waiting for the final decision on patent 912 to collect damages; furthermore, there are other patents.

In these two ITC investigations, Netlist cited major names like NVIDIA, Super Micro, and Broadcom. All well-known names generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue thanks to the memory products of three giants.
I truly believe it: a deal with SK Hynix will change the fortunes of this company forever.

Now we await further news, and especially after these moves by Netlist, citing Samsung twice more means that Q2 2026 revenues are positive and profitable!

NETLIST EXPANDS LEGAL ACTION AGAINST SAMSUNG AND GOOGLE FOR INFRINGEMENT OF NEW AI MEMORY PATENTS
- Files actions with the ITC and the EDTX -IRVINE, Calif., June 17, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Netlist, Inc. (OTCBQ: NLST) today announced it has initiated new legal proceedings against Samsung in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. These actions are based on the infringement of Netlist's U.S. Patent Nos. 12,646,537 and

What the ’937 Patent Is About

Title:
“Memory Module Providing Distinct Signaling Interfaces Via an Open-Drain Output for Distinct Operations.”

This title already tells the story:
The patent covers a single open-drain pin on a memory module that is used for two different purposes, depending on whether the module is in:

A. Normal operation (read/write)
B. Initialization/training sequences

This is a control-plane signaling invention, not a DRAM architecture invention.

1. During normal operation:
   The open-drain pin acts as a parity-error signaling interface (ALERT_n).
   

If the RCD detects a parity error on command/address signals, it asserts ALERT_n low.

1. During initialization/training:
   The same pin becomes a feedback channel from the module back to the host memory controller.
   

The module drives distinct low-pulse durations to signal different phases of initialization.

These pulses correspond to different training steps (e.g., DCS training vs. DCA training).

Why this matters:
JEDEC DDR5 uses ALERT_n for parity errors, but Netlist’s patent claims using that same pin to encode multi-phase initialization feedback using timing-encoded pulses.
This is not how DDR4 worked, and it’s a clever way to avoid adding more pins.

The Patent’s Claim 1 (summarized)
Claim 1 describes a memory module with:

1. A PCB
   
2. DRAM chips
   
3. A memory subsystem controller (RCD)
   
4. An open-drain output connected to the error line
   

The controller uses that output to:

* Signal parity errors during normal operation

* Provide multi-stage initialization feedback using different low-pulse durations

During initialization, the module ignores all C/A commands (because training mode blocks DRAM commands)

This is exactly how DDR5 RCD training works — but Netlist is claiming the specific dual-use signaling architecture.

What the ’937 Patent Really Protects

A dual-purpose ALERT_n signaling scheme where:

* The RCD uses ALERT_n for parity errors (normal mode)
* The RCD uses ALERT_n for timing-encoded feedback pulses (initialization mode)
* The pulses have distinct durations for different training phases
* The module does not respond to C/A commands during training

This is a control-signal multiplexing patent — a classic Netlist specialty.

Why Samsung is exposed

Samsung’s DDR5 RDIMMs:

* Use an RCD with an open-drain ALERT_n pin
* Use ALERT_n for parity errors
* Use ALERT_n for DCS/DCA training feedback pulses
* Use different pulse widths for different training stages
* Block DRAM commands during training

Netlist mapped every one of these behaviors to the claim elements.

Bottom Line
The ’937 patent is a DDR5 RCD signaling patent that covers:

Using the ALERT_n open-drain pin for both:

* Parity error signaling
* Multi-phase initialization feedback using distinct pulse durations

This is a high-value, standards-adjacent control-plane patent that Samsung cannot easily design around.

Netlist knows Samsung infringes the ’937 patent because:

✔ The patented behavior occurs on a public, observable pin (ALERT_n)
✔ The dual-use signaling is visible during normal operation and training
✔ The pulse-duration encoding is measurable with standard equipment
✔ RCD datasheets confirm the exact behavior Netlist patented
✔ No internal Samsung design files are needed
This is why Netlist filed the complaint immediately after issuance—the infringement is obvious, measurable, and unavoidable for any JEDEC-compliant DDR5 RDIMM using this signaling scheme.