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 that the licenses granted by Netlist 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 Court of Appeals issued a Time Schedule Order on February 28, 2022. On August 4, 2022, Netlist filed a cross-appeal seeking the Appeal Court’s reconsideration of the District Court’s finding that the fees Netlist paid to PwC were consequential damages, rather than recoverable general damages. On June 8, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments from both parties on the matter following completion of all briefing. On October 17, 2023, the Ninth Circuit panel issued an unpublished memorandum affirming-in-part and reversing-and-remanding-in-part the District Court’s rulings. On November 8, 2023, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate to the California Central District Court.
On October 15, 2021, Samsung initiated a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the DDE (Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et. al. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01453-RGA), where it requested in relevant part that the DDE declare that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,858,218 (the “‘218 Patent”), 10,217,523 (the “‘523 Patent”), 10,474,595 (the “‘595 Patent”), and the ‘506, ‘339, ‘912 and ‘918 Patents, while later seeking leave to add the ‘054 Patent (issued Jan. 25, 2022) to its action. On August 1, 2022, Hon. Judge Andrews dismissed all of Samsung’s counts related to Netlist’s ‘912, ‘506, ‘339, and ‘918 Patents, and denied Samsung’s request to bring its ‘054 claims in Delaware. On September 12, 2022, Netlist amended its Counterclaims to include counterclaims tying Google to the action. On November 15, 2022, Google responded to Netlist’s Counterclaims by filing a Motion to Dismiss or alternatively to Sever and Stay the counterclaims. On May 22, 2023, the Court heard oral arguments on Google’s Motion to Dismiss or alternatively, Sever and Stay and Dismiss Willfulness and Indirect Infringement Allegations. On October 10, 2023, the Court entered an order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Samsung’s prior motion to stay the matter in light of pending IPRs and a Ninth Circuit appeal, staying claims with respect to the ‘218 and ‘595 patents, while allowing claims under the ‘523 patent to proceed. As of the reporting date, the Court has not entered an Order on Google’s motion, but the Claim Construction hearing was held on October 20, 2023, and the Jury Trial is still scheduled to begin on February 3, 2025. Samsung has since filed another Motion to Stay given the recent Ninth Circuit decision. As of the reporting date, the parties are briefing the issues for the Court.
On November 19, 2021, Samsung filed IPR requests contesting the validity of the ‘218, the ‘595, and the ‘523 Patents. Netlist filed its initial responses to Samsung’s IPR petitions on February 18, 2022, contesting the institution of any IPR on the grounds propounded. As of the reporting date, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding all of the claims of the ‘523 Patent valid and patentable, while finding all of the claims of the ‘218 and ‘595 Patents unpatentable.
On December 20, 2021, Netlist filed a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung in the EDTX (Case No. 2:21-cv-00463-JRG) under the ‘506, ‘339, and ‘918 Patents. On May 3, 2022, Netlist entered a First Amended Complaint pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 15, adding claims for infringement under three additional patents: the ‘060, ‘160, and ‘054 Patents. Netlist brought claims under the ‘339, ‘918, ‘054, ‘060, and ‘160 Patents in its Jury Trial, which concluded on April 21, 2023, with the entry of the jury’s verdict into the public record. The jury unanimously found that Samsung willfully infringed Netlist’s ‘339, ‘918, ‘054, ‘060, and ‘160 Patents through the sale of their DDR4 LRDIMMs, DDR5 DIMMs, and HBMs, and that none of the patent claims asserted at trial were invalid. The jury awarded Netlist, Inc. a total of approximately $303 million for Samsung’s infringement. On May 30, 2023, Hon. Chief Judge Gilstrap conducted a bench trial to assess the merits of Samsung’s affirmative defenses excusing its infringement of only the ‘339, ‘918, and ‘054 Patents. On August 11, 2023, Chief Judge Gilstrap issued a memorandum and Order denying Samsung’s requested relief and finding that the ‘918 and ‘054 patents were not unenforceable due to equitable estoppel, prosecution laches, or unclean hands, and that the ‘339 patent was not unenforceable due to unclean hands. The same day, the Court entered a Final Judgment against the Samsung Defendants for $303 million for Samsung’s willful infringement through the date of trial, but declined awarding enhanced damages. As of the reporting date, the parties have filed post-judgment motions., including a motion by Samsung to vacate the final judgment in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision. The parties are briefing all of the post-judgment motions, and as of the reporting date the Court has not yet entered its final order.
On February 17, 2022, Samsung filed an IPR request contesting the validity of only claim 16 within the ‘912 Patent. Samsung then filed two additional IPR requests contesting the validity of the ‘506 and ‘339 Patents. Netlist filed