Samsung Litigations
On May 28, 2020, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for Samsung’s breach of the parties’ JDLA. On July 22, 2020, Netlist amended its complaint to seek a Declaratory Judgment that it properly terminated the JDLA in light of Samsung’s material breaches. On October 14, 2021, the Court entered summary judgment in Netlist’s favor and confirmed Netlist properly terminated the JDLA as of July 15, 2020. On February 15, 2022, the Court entered a Final Judgment in favor of Netlist on each of its three claims and confirmed conclusively that all licenses granted under the JDLA were terminated. On February 25, 2022, Samsung filed a Notice of Appeal, and the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Time Schedule Order on February 28, 2022, setting Samsung’s deadline to file an opening appeal brief as June 6, 2022. Netlist noticed its intention to file a cross-appeal and the Ninth Circuit confirmed a contemporaneous briefing deadline of June 6, 2022, for the same.
On October 15, 2021, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“DDE”), requesting in relevant part that the Delaware District Court declare that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912, 9,858,218, 10,217,523, 10,474,595, 10,860,506, 10,949,339, and 11,016,918. As of the reporting date, Samsung seeks leave to add U.S. Pat. 11,232,054 (issued Jan. 25, 2022) to the action. Netlist believes Samsung’s claims levied in the DDE action meritless, and the relief Samsung requests unjustified. As of the reporting date, Netlist filed a motion seeking dismissal of Samsung’s DDE complaint, and an opposition contesting the inclusion of U.S. Pat. 11,232,054 as part of a second amended complaint filing. The matter is fully briefed, and Netlist awaits an order from the Court.
On November 19, 2021, Samsung filed IPR proceedings contesting the validity of U.S. Patents 9,858,218 (the “’218 patent”), 10,474,595 (the “’595 patent”), and 10,217,523 (the “’523 patent”). Netlist filed its initial responses to Samsung’s petitions on February 18, 2022, contesting the institution of any IPR on the grounds propounded. As of the reporting date, the PTAB has not yet made decision with respect to the IPR requests related to the ‘218 or ‘595 patents, but did enter an order instituting IPR proceedings for the ‘523 patent on May 5, 2022. On February 17, 2022, Samsung filed a separate IPR request contesting the validity of only claim 16 within Netlist’s U.S. Patent 7,619,912. The PTAB issued a filing date for this challenge of the ‘912 patent, making Netlist’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response due on July 21, 2022. As of the reporting date, Samsung has filed two additional IPR proceedings contesting the validity of Netlist’s U.S. Patents 10,860,506 and 10,949,339. The PTAB issued filing dates for both, making Netlist’s deadline to file its Preliminary Responses to each on July 21, 2022 and July 28, 2022, respectively,
On December 20, 2021, Netlist filed for a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:21-cv-463) under US Pat. No. 10,860,506; US Pat. No. 10,949,339; & US Pat. No. 11,016,918. Samsung responded to Netlist’s complaint on April 12, 2022, and Judge Gilstrap ordered a scheduling conference be set for May 18, 2022. On May 3, 2022, Netlist entered a First Amended Complaint pursuant to FRCP Rule 15, adding claims for infringement under three additional patents: U.S. Patents 8,787,060, 9,318,160, and 11,232,054. On May 4, 2022, Netlist complied with the EDTX local patent rules and served its preliminary infringement contentions on Samsung. As of the reporting date, Netlist awaits its opportunity to appear in Judge Gilstrap’s ordered case management conference.
Other Contingent Obligations
In the ordinary course of our business, we have made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which we may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include, among others: (i) intellectual property indemnities to our customers and licensees in connection with the use, sale and/or license of our products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on our negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities to SVB pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by the applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; and (vi) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property