Contact Us Back to the Newsroom Netlist Files Legal Action Against Samsung in the U.S. International Trade Commission Tuesday, 30 September 2025 08:00 AM Topic:Â The ITC is an independent, non-partisan agency that investigates and makes determinations against unfair acts in the import trade that violate U.S. intellectual property rights. ITC investigations proceed on an expedited basis, commonly progressing to trial within a year. Netlist is represented by Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, with the legal team ...

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of enabling Javascript and cookies in browsers to ensure proper functionality and access to content [1] Group 1 - The article suggests that users may face access issues if they have an ad-blocker enabled [1] - It highlights the need to disable ad-blockers and refresh the page for a better experience [1]

Core Insights - Alpha Modus (AMOD) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mood Media in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, claiming infringement of seven U.S. patents related to real-time shopper analytics and other technologies [1] - Mood Media operates in over 500,000 retail and hospitality locations across more than 140 countries, reaching approximately 165 million consumers daily [1] - The lawsuit seeks damages for past and ongoing infringement, as well as an injunction to prevent further use of Alpha Modus's patented technologies [1] Company Overview - Alpha Modus is asserting its intellectual property rights through a lawsuit against a major player in the experiential media industry, indicating a focus on protecting its innovations [1] - Mood Media's portfolio includes various technologies such as digital signage, AI-powered messaging platforms, and IoT sensors, highlighting its extensive capabilities in enhancing customer experiences [1] Legal Context - The lawsuit involves seven specific patents, which cover innovations in areas such as targeted advertising and inventory management, suggesting a significant technological overlap between the two companies [1] - The legal action reflects the competitive landscape in the retail technology sector, where companies are increasingly reliant on proprietary technologies to differentiate their offerings [1]

Core Viewpoint - Alpha Modus Corp. has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mood Media, asserting that Mood Media has unlawfully utilized its patented technologies in retail engagement [1][4]. Group 1: Patent Infringement Details - The lawsuit claims infringement of seven U.S. patents related to innovations in real-time shopper analytics, targeted advertising, inventory management, planogram optimization, and personalized in-store engagement [2]. - The patents involved are Nos. 10,360,571; 10,853,825; 12,039,550; 11,042,890; 11,301,880; 11,049,120; and 12,026,731 [2]. Group 2: Mood Media Overview - Mood Media is a major experiential media provider, operating in over 500,000 retail and hospitality locations across more than 140 countries, reaching approximately 165 million consumers daily [3]. - Its offerings include digital signage, smart shelving, AI-powered messaging platforms, IoT sensors, and scent marketing [3]. Group 3: Legal Actions and Objectives - The lawsuit seeks damages for past and ongoing infringement, an injunction to prevent further use of Alpha Modus's patented technologies, and other legal remedies [4]. - Alpha Modus aims to enforce its patent portfolio within the retail and advertising sectors to ensure proper licensing or partnership for its AI technologies [4]. Group 4: Company Background - Alpha Modus (NASDAQ: AMOD) specializes in developing and licensing AI-driven retail technologies aimed at enhancing the in-store experience [5]. - The company's patent portfolio includes technologies for real-time consumer behavior analytics, AI-powered planogramming, personalized digital engagement, dynamic pricing, and intelligent inventory management [5].

Core Viewpoint - Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against MNTN, Inc. to protect its intellectual property and shareholder interests while also expressing a willingness to collaborate with potential adversaries [1][5][6]. Patent Infringement Details - The lawsuit asserts infringement of three key patents that are central to Alpha Modus's technology, which aims to enhance consumer engagement at the point of sale [3][5]. - The specific patents involved include: - U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571: Methods for monitoring and analyzing consumer behavior in real time [5]. - U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890: Systems for enhancing in-store customer assistance using advanced monitoring and sentiment analysis [5]. - U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731: Personalized marketing and advertising linked to real-time consumer interactions and location tracking [5]. Industry Context - Alpha Modus has previously filed similar patent infringement actions against major retailers and advertising networks, highlighting its role as a pioneer in protecting and monetizing technologies within the $60+ billion retail media and self-service kiosk markets [7]. - The lawsuit against MNTN seeks damages, injunctive relief, and validation of Alpha Modus's patents [8]. Company Overview - Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded company focused on AI-driven retail and fintech solutions, leveraging a growing patent portfolio to redefine consumer engagement [9].

Core Viewpoint - Neonode Inc. anticipates receiving net proceeds of approximately US$15 million to US$20 million from a settlement related to a patent infringement lawsuit involving its subsidiary Aequitas Sub and Samsung Electronics [2][5]. Group 1: Settlement Details - The lawsuit was filed by Aequitas Sub against Samsung on June 8, 2020, alleging patent infringement, and was dismissed on September 2, 2025, following a settlement [5]. - Neonode is entitled to 50 percent of any net proceeds from the settlement based on the Assignment Agreement with Aequitas Technologies LLC [1][4]. - The expected net proceeds will be calculated after deducting brokerage fees, legal fees, taxes, and other expenses [2][4]. Group 2: Financial Implications - The anticipated net proceeds of US$15 million to US$20 million will be subject to further evaluation regarding tax implications and other financial considerations [2][3]. - As of September 3, 2025, the Board of Directors has not made a decision on the use of the proceeds from the settlement [3]. Group 3: Background Information - In 2019, Neonode assigned a portfolio of patents to Aequitas, which allows the company to share in potential net proceeds from licensing and monetization efforts by Aequitas [4]. - A separate patent infringement case against Apple Inc. by Aequitas Sub remains pending in California [6].

Core Viewpoint - Halozyme Therapeutics has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Merck, alleging that Merck's development of subcutaneous Keytruda infringes on Halozyme's patented MDASE technology [1][2][5] Company Overview - Halozyme is a biotechnology company that specializes in subcutaneous drug delivery using human hyaluronidase, with a focus on improving patient outcomes through innovative drug delivery solutions [1][6] - The company has developed the ENHANZE® drug delivery technology, which facilitates rapid subcutaneous delivery of therapeutic drugs, and has partnered with major pharmaceutical companies to enhance patient experiences [6][8] Patent Infringement Details - Halozyme claims that Merck has used its MDASE technology without permission to develop subcutaneous Keytruda, which has completed phase 3 clinical testing and is expected to launch in 2025 [2][3] - The lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief to prevent Merck from launching SC Keytruda, as Halozyme believes Merck is aware of the infringement [5][6] Research and Development - Halozyme's patents stem from extensive research involving nearly 7,000 modifications to human hyaluronidases, which enable rapid subcutaneous administration of therapeutic drugs [4] - The company's innovations in hyaluronidases represent significant advancements in the field, providing a roadmap for enhancing drug delivery mechanisms [4] Legal Context - Halozyme's Chief Legal Officer stated that Merck's actions indicate a clear infringement of Halozyme's patents, and the lawsuit aims to enforce these rights without affecting Halozyme's existing ENHANZE® licensing program [5][6]

Financial Data and Key Metrics Changes - Sales for Q4 2024 reached $208.5 million, marking a significant recovery despite challenges such as the Boeing strike [9] - Adjusted operating income increased to 11.4% from 5.9% year-over-year, while adjusted net income rose to 8.1% from 3.3% [10] - Adjusted EBITDA was $31.5 million, representing 15.1% of sales, with positive cash from operations of $26.4 million, the first positive cash quarter since before the pandemic [10][28] Business Line Data and Key Metrics Changes - Aerospace segment sales hit a record $188.5 million, up 11.7% year-over-year, driven by commercial and military aircraft demand [11][39] - Adjusted operating margin for aerospace improved to 16.0%, up 5.8 percentage points year-over-year [41] - The test segment showed modest improvement but remained roughly breakeven, with expectations for $4 to $5 million in annual cost savings beginning in Q1 2025 [42][43] Market Data and Key Metrics Changes - Q4 bookings totaled $196 million, resulting in a book-to-bill ratio of 0.94%, with an estimated $10 million impact on bookings due to the Boeing strike [16] - The company ended the year with a backlog of $599 million, indicating strong demand moving into 2025 [16] Company Strategy and Development Direction - The company plans to increase capital expenditures to approximately $35 to $40 million in 2025, focusing on facility consolidation and capacity expansion [35][36] - The strategy includes reinvesting in the business and potentially using excess liquidity for acquisitions or share buybacks [37][34] Management's Comments on Operating Environment and Future Outlook - Management expressed optimism about the company's position, citing strong liquidity and a record backlog as key indicators for 2025 [52] - The company maintains a sales guidance of $820 to $860 million for 2025, with expectations for sales to ramp up in the second half of the year [53] Other Important Information - The company reported a net loss of $0.08 per diluted share for the quarter, but non-GAAP adjusted earnings per share improved to $0.48 from $0.19 year-over-year [27][28] - Legal expenses related to a patent infringement dispute in the UK amounted to $6.1 million, with a favorable ruling resulting in a damages award of $11.8 million, significantly lower than initial estimates [14][48] Q&A Session Summary Question: Potential for other open-ended cases to have damages claims - Management indicated uncertainty regarding potential damages in ongoing cases, with outcomes in France and Germany still pending [56][58] Question: Increased CapEx plans - The increase in CapEx is primarily for facility consolidation and deferred maintenance, with expectations for a steady cash flow throughout the year [62][64] Question: Military programs and defense budget reallocations - Management believes military programs will remain stable, with strong support for key initiatives like the FLRAA program [70][72] Question: 2025 outlook and ARO test split - The company expects a continued strong performance in aerospace, while the test segment may face challenges in the first half of 2025 [75][78] Question: Tariffs and supply chain impacts - Management noted that the supply chain has adapted to minimize dependence on China, and they do not foresee significant tariff impacts [80][82] Question: Retrofit market demand - The retrofit market remains strong, driven by modernization efforts and the demand for updated technologies in older aircraft [85][87] Question: Order rates from Boeing - Management reported that order rates have not significantly rebounded, but there is strong momentum in delivery requests from Boeing [92][94] Question: Municipal transit markets - Management noted that while return-to-office programs are gaining momentum, they have not yet materially impacted the municipal transit market [97][99]