PR from last year indicates that Battelle and 1st Detect are collaborating on the Multi-Sample Identifier Detector (MSID variant) of the Next Generation Chemical Detector (NGCD) program. Are you referring to the recent Chemring award for the Joint Biological Tactical Detection System (JBTDS)? That is a different program right? I do not see any update on the MSID variant from the NGCD program.
Thanks in advance for any clarification.
Will we get more details tomorrow?...
From the earnings call:
"In Q1, we successfully completed the trial with the mobile operator who is bringing location-based services to the enterprise customers. We are now preparing for an in-market trial with that operator and a very large retailer, which we hope to turn them to a wide scale commercial deployment later this year."
From 50(b) JMOL motion:
"Netlist knows that this Court is well aware of its responsibility. Throughout these proceedings, the Court acknowledged its right and duty to correct the jury on questions of law, at one point telling counsel (in the context of discussing the possibility that the jury might not abide by the Court’s interpretation of the Supply Agreement), "Well – I mean, that's why we have judgment, you know, notwithstanding any jury's verdict." Trial Tr. 394:4-7.
After the verdict, the Court acknowledged the problem created by the jury's verdict, stating "I have to deal with the fact that there’s an admission that you [Diablo] used the chips, you used them. There's no dispute. … So I have to deal with that in the context of this verdict." Dkt. 468, April 24, 2015 Tr. at 64, 65."
Check it out if you are interested:
5/28/15 12pm EST
Mario Martinez of Netlist, a SNIA SSSI NVDIMM SIG member, will discuss how persistent memory solutions deliver the endurance and performance of DRAM coupled with the non-volatility of Flash. This webinar will also update you on the latest solutions for enterprise server and storage designs, and provide insights into future persistent memory advances. A specific focus will be NVDIMM solutions, with examples from the member companies of the SNIA NVDIMM Special Interest Group.
Netlist's request for JMOL on breach of contract claims and a new trial for the trade secret claims was filed yesterday. The court was also asked to find in favor of Netlist in its Business & Professions Code section 17200 claim. Interested parties should definitely read it. Doc. 477
We have already seen the argument for the JMOL for the breach of contract claims, but the argument for a new trial for the trade secret claims is also very convincing.
Netlist also asked for the permanent injunction. If the court does not grant a permanent injunction, Netlist request a new trial on damages for breach of contract.
Again, if you're interested, go read Doc. 477 yourself. I won't be replying to or monitoring this post, so don't bother baiting me.
I was expecting revenue to be much higher given the orders that were announced. The low revenue number suggest that none of these orders were actually shipped and booked as revenue yet. Hopefully that means the orders were too big to fill right away.
I was also surprised by the low volume and average price of shares that were repurchased. 53,825 shares X $2.48. Looks like they haven't bought any after Jan 15th based on the $2.48 average price. That suggests real market support for the $3 range.
Netlist can only file the 50(b) motion after the official "Judgement" is entered, which is today (doc. 459). I think Netlist has 28 days from today to file it, but I would guess it would file it asap, maybe even as early as Monday. Diablo will obviously have a chance to file their own brief to oppose it, so briefing won't be done until mid-May. The court can then decide on when to hear and rule on it.
whales_gez, the brief you are referring to is probably the one for the "UCL claim" - California Business & Professions Code section 17200. Since that also depends on the breach of contract claim, it therefore also depends on the Rule 50(b) ruling.
Next step is for Netlist to officially file the Rule 50(b) motion. If the judge rule in favor of Netlist, as I still expect her to, she can issue a permanent injunction at that point. Of course it will still go to the appeals court regardless of how the district judge rules. However, a favorable ruling for Netlist increase the chance of IP licensing and/or put pressure on ULLtraDIMM sales and Diablo's reputation.
It's just a timing issue. Basically the court is saying it has to rule in Diablo's favor TODAY because the "present record" does not include a post-trial Rule 50(b) motion. It cannot rule in favor of Netlist on something that is currently not even filed yet. The judge can still rule that Diablo breached the contract when she rules on the post-trial Rule 50(b) motion.
Read these quotes from today's court rulings carefully!!!
"The Court's determination that Netlist can no longer show a likelihood of success on the present record does not prejudge the possibility of Netlist prevailing on any post-trial motion it might file. The Court's order herein simply acknowledges the state of the case at this time."
"The Court has no Rule 50(b) motion before it at this time."
"The Court follows the 'desirable' practice of refraining from ruling on a 50(a) motion until the jury has returned a verdict, in favor of a renewed 50(b) motion post-verdict."
"The Fi service will also work over Wi-Fi links if cellular coverage isn't available."
"...Google is promising subscribers that their Nexus 6 model will automatically connect with the fastest network available."
We already know Sprint use SMSI's Netwise for that. If Google is using both Sprint and T-Mobile, that should also mean T-Mobile would be using Netwise as well right?
During the trial, "Diablo submitted no evidence, nor did it call its industry expert, to rebut Netlist's proof that the products are targeted for the same customer applications, and thereby are in direct competition."
"Diablo failed to call its industry expert, and Netlist’s lost sales and 'first to market' testimony was unrebutted."
Everyone should read doc. 442 from Friday 4/3/15.
The judge sounds willing to undo the verdict by reserving to rule on the 50(a) JMOL after the verdict. "...if we have to undo it later, then we undo it later."
The judge: "You know, the other approach that judges frequently take is we just let it go to the – to the jury and if we have to undo it later, then we undo it later. But that way, we have the benefit of a jury verdict. And we don’t have the jury sitting around waiting. So it’s – it is – it is always an issue for judges when – you know, and I have seen all the evidence – when we think that things are pretty clear and we just sit up here and hope and pray that the jury thinks it as clear so that we don’t have to go back and undo something that jury’s done. (Id. at 38:11-21.)"
"The Court reserved ruling on Netlist’s Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law, and it remains pending. Netlist also intends to timely file a Rule 50(b) motion on similar grounds. Meanwhile, it is “clearly within the [C]ourt’s power” to grant judgment as a matter of law upon its own initiative, sua sponte."
The only additional significant evidence that came out of the trial related to the breach of contract claim is the fact that Diablo admitted to actually having SOLD some of the prototypes that contain Netlist's ID chips. We already knew that Diablo used the chips for demo'ing to customers and for 'software and firmware development, testing, and debugging, as well as to begin design and testing of the logic that would eventually become the Rush chip."
Of course the judge's interpretation of the contract is very important, but what about how other CTO's and senior engineers will interpret what happened here. Would they be willing to recommend that their company collaborate with a company that has a reputation of using its partner's technology to build a competing product? Would you trust your company's IP and trade secrets with Diablo after knowing what happened here?
The cap on Fortress's cut was definitely a very good development. Fortress will get less than $10mm, in case you missed it. It is also very comforting to know that the the only significant covenant for the Fortress loan is that Netlist has to keep $500K cash in the bank. So, no worry about Fortress trying to play some dirty trick to take control of Netlist.
Netlist is probably for sell for the right price. It's just that no one so far is willing to pay the price Chuck is willing to sell at.
Samsung has been losing NAND market share steadily and their Mobile DRAM share has been relative flat to lower in the past few years. The question is, can Samsung afford to have Netlist in the hands of Sandisk, SK Hynix, or Micron? Keep in mind that, DRAM usage will likely continue to grow even with HyperVault, the total pie just gets bigger.
With every patent win and collaboration, and every new alliance their enemies make, the chance of someone willing to pay Chuck's price goes up. I will not speculate when it will happen, but Netlist has proven their IP and products are superior. Strong backing / major partnerships is all it is missing. Microsoft could be it, but we need the Purchase Orders to come in to prove it. At least we now know they are the lead supplier in that deal.
We know from the court documents that Netlist was pitching collaboration with Samsung and Toshiba. Now we know that they are working with a phone manufacturer and Seagate. All speculation of course, but it seems like perhaps they landed Samsung, but not Toshiba and ended up with Seagate instead.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend... With multi-billion dollar market at stake, alliances will be formed. It's not just about server memory and storage. It's all about getting businesses and individual users to come to your platform for the service and advertising revenue. That is why even Microsoft are creating many Google apps to try to direct users to Microsoft's OneDrive.
"On the evening of March 25, Diablo filed its emergency motion to stay the injunction in this Court. (Dkt. 77.) Diablo's motion failed to advise this Court that the district court: (1) denied Diablo’s request to issue an Indicative Ruling that it "would dissolve the injunction;" (2) that the district court acknowledged the difficult "quandary" caused by the jury's verdict and the admitted fact that Diablo "used the [Netlist] technology" for 22 months without Netlist's permission by embedding the ID chips in the two prototypes; and (3) that Netlist's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) was filed on this very ground and reserved for ruling by the district court after the jury's verdict.
On the afternoon of March 26, before Netlist could submit this opposition, this Court issued its Order stating: "The district court's preliminary injunction as to Diablo is temporarily stayed, pending the court's consideration of the [emergency] motion." (Dkt. 78 at 2.) The Court also ordered Netlist to file this opposition, and presumably will either lift the temporary stay of the injunction or keep it in place after considering Netlist's opposition.
Given the undisputed evidence that Diablo breached the parties' Supply Agreement by using the ID chips, and the full trial record and knowledge possessed by the district court, Diablo cannot establish the likelihood of success necessary to obtain a stay. Netlist respectfully requests that this Court lift the stay and reinstate the preliminary injunction. Thereafter, the Court should remand the injunction issues to the district court so that, in the first instance, it can determine whether the preliminary injunction should remain in place."