Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 26, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 6—Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Legal Expenses Any litigation, regardless of its outcome, is inherently uncertain, involves a significant dedication of resources, including time and capital, and diverts management’s attention from our other activities. As a result, any current or future claims, allegations, or challenges by or against third parties, whether eventually decided in our favor or settled, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the outcome of pending or future litigation and/or related patent reviews and reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect our ability to continue to sell our products, protect against competition in the current and expected markets for our products or license or otherwise monetize our intellectual property rights in the future. We retain the services of law firms that specialize in patent licensing and enforcement and patent law in connection with our licensing and enforcement activities. These law firms are often paid an additional fee on a percentage of any negotiated fee, settlements or judgments awarded based on how and when the fees, settlements or judgments are obtained. During the third quarter and first nine months of 2026 we recognized $1.8 million of contingent fee in connection with our Samsung settlement. Contingent fees in connection with settlement agreements are incremental costs of obtaining a contract to be capitalized and amortized over the license term. Litigation and Challenges to Netlist Patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) We are, from time to time, a party to litigation that arises in the normal course of our business operations. We own numerous patents and continue to seek to grow and strengthen our patent portfolio, which covers various aspects of our innovations and includes various claim scopes. We plan to pursue avenues to monetize our intellectual property portfolio, in which we would generate revenue by selling or licensing our technology, and we intend to vigorously enforce our patent rights against alleged infringers of such rights. We dedicate substantial resources to protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights, including with patent infringement proceedings we file against third parties and defense of our patents against challenges made by way of reexamination and review proceedings at the USPTO and PTAB. On August 4, 2026, we entered into a five-year term Patent Cross License Agreement (the “Samsung License Agreement”) with Samsung, effective as of July 1, 2026 (the “Effective Date”). Pursuant to the Samsung License Agreement, each party granted the other party a worldwide, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, royalty-bearing (in the case of Samsung as licensee) or royalty-free (in the case of us as licensee) licenses to certain patents. In consideration of the license under our patents, Samsung paid the Company an upfront license fee of $200 million and agreed to pay quarterly license fees of up to $27.5 million for each of the twenty calendar quarters from the Effective Date through the second calendar quarter of 2031, with the amount of each quarterly license fee payment to be calculated in accordance with a revenue-based formula set forth in the Samsung License Agreement. These quarterly amounts may be subject to certain adjustments based on events occurring during later terms of the contract. Under the Samsung License Agreement, Samsung is responsible for all Korean withholding taxes applicable to the license fee payments and is required to gross up such payments so that the Company receives the full stated amounts. As a result, Samsung’s total payment obligation under the Samsung License Agreement, inclusive of estimated Korean withholding taxes payable to the Korean tax authorities, is up to approximately $898.2 million consisting of approximately $239 million in upfront fees and $32.9 million in fees per quarter. On August 4, 2026, we entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Samsung Settlement Agreement”) effective as of the Effective Date with Samsung. The Samsung Settlement Agreement was entered into in settlement of the pending legal proceedings between us and Samsung identified therein. On October 5, 2026, we entered into the Micron License Agreement (as defined below) and the Micron Settlement Agreement (as defined below) with Micron Technology, Inc., resolving our pending patent litigations with Micron (as defined below). Pursuant to the Micron Settlement Agreement, the parties will stipulate to dismiss the pending proceedings within the time period set forth in the Micron Settlement Agreement following receipt of the initial amount due to the Company pursuant to the Micron License Agreement. See Note 10 to these condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information. Samsung Litigation In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, the parties have jointly dismissed all litigation pending at the U.S. District Courts and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). Micron Litigation In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, the parties have jointly moved to dismiss all litigation pending at the U.S. District Courts, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County, and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). See Note 10 to these condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information. We expect the other activities below to continue for the foreseeable future, with no guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection or litigation activities will be successful, or that we will be able to monetize our intellectual property portfolio. Google Litigation On December 4, 2009, Netlist filed a complaint against Google, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case no. 3:09-cv-05718), for infringement of the ’912 Patent, seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and a preliminary and permanent injunction. On October 17, 2022, the Court entered a stipulated order to stay this case until the resolution of the patent infringement suit against Samsung filed on August 1, 2022 in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00293), including any appeal thereof. Kingston Litigation On October 16, 2026, Netlist filed a complaint against Kingston Technology Company, Inc. and Kingston Technology Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case no. 8:26-cv-03047, for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,373,366 and 12,762,074, seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and equitable relief. On November 4, 2026, Netlist filed a complaint against Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, Kingston Technology Far East Corp., Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Kingston Digital, Inc., and Kingston Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Kingston”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case no. 8:26-cv-03262, for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,025,731 (“the ’731 Patent”), 11,200,120 (“the ’120 Patent”), 11,914,481 (“the ’481 Patent”), and 12,675,407 (“the ’407 Patent”), seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and equitable relief. On November 5, 2026, Netlist filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), docket no. 337-3946, for patent infringement against Kingston and Lenovo (Beijing) Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Global Technology (United States) Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd., and Lenovo PC HK Ltd. (collectively, “Lenovo”), CDW Corp., CDW Logistics LLC, Ingram Micro, Inc., Insight Direct USA, Inc., Insight Enterprises, Inc., and Zones LLC (collectively, “Respondents”). The complaint alleges infringement of the ’731, ’120, ’481, and ’407 Patents by Kingston’s Double Data Rate 5^th Gen. (“DDR5”) Registered Dual Inline Memory Module (“RDIMM”) or solid state drive (“SSD”), products containing the same, and components thereof. Netlist seeks a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order from the ITC to stop Respondents’ infringing acts with respect to these infringing products. Challenges to Netlist Patents at the USPTO and the PTAB Although the Samsung Settlement Agreement and the Micron Settlement Agreement resolved our pending disputes with Samsung and Micron, certain proceedings before the USPTO, the PTAB and the CAFC remain pending. Samsung and Micron have withdrawn from the appeals that we filed with the CAFC from adverse PTAB final written decisions, but those appeals, which seek to reverse findings of unpatentability that would otherwise remain in effect as to all third parties, continue. In addition, ex parte reexaminations ordered by the USPTO proceed between the USPTO and the patent owner and are not terminated by a settlement with the requester, and certain reexamination requests were filed by unidentified parties that are not party to either settlement. We intend to continue to pursue these appeals and to defend our patents in these proceedings. The status of each such proceeding is described below. On February 17, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00615). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent, IPR2023-00203. On April 17, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent unpatentable. On September 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) (Case No. 2024-2304). In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, Samsung withdrew from this appeal. On September 9, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, Micron also withdrew from this appeal. On September 14, 2026, the CAFC issued an order asking the USPTO whether it would intervene in this appeal. The appeal remains pending. On March 2, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’339 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00639). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’339 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00204). On October 18, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On April 11, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1707). On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. On September 2, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision. On May 17, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’918 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00996). On January 6, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’918 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00406. On December 6, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On May 20, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1859). On May 17, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’054 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00999). On January 6, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’054 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00405). On December 5, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On May 20, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1863). On June 3, 2024, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’918 Patent (Case No. 2024-1859). On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on the consolidated appeals of the IPRs of the ’918 and ’054 Patents. On September 2, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions. On August 26, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’160 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-01427). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’160 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00883. On April 1, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On August 19, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-2240. On August 26, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’060 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-01428). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’060 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00882). On April 1, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On August 19, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-2241). On September 6, 2024, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’160 Patent (Case No. 2024-2240). On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on the consolidated appeals of the IPRs of the ’160 and ’060 Patents. On September 2, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions. On January 10, 2023, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’215 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00455. On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’215 Patent (Case No. IPR 2023-01142). On July 30, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On December 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1286). On January 10, 2023, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’417 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00454). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’417 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-01141). On July 30, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On December 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1296). On January 15, 2025, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’215 Patent (Case No. 2025-1286). On September 9, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on the consolidated appeals of the IPRs of the ’215 and ’417 Patents. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, Samsung withdrew from these consolidated appeals. In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, Micron also withdrew from these consolidated appeals. These consolidated appeals remain pending. On August 14, 2025, an unidentified party filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’608 Patent (Application No. 90/015,449). On October 17, 2025, Netlist filed a petition to the Director to terminate this reexamination. On November 5, 2025, the unidentified party opposed. On November 7, 2025, the request for reexamination was granted by the examiner. On January 6, 2026, Netlist filed a renewed petition to the Director to terminate this reexamination. On January 15, 2026, the unidentified party opposed. On August 25, 2025, Samsung filed a Petition for Post Grant Review (“PGR”) of the ’087 Patent (Case No. PGR2025-00071) and a Petition for IPR of the ’087 Patent (IPR2025-01402). On February 18, 2026, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR but granted institution of the PGR. On March 4, 2026, Netlist filed a Request for Director Review of the PGR institution decision. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, the parties jointly dismissed this PGR. On August 29, 2025, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’731 Patent (IPR2025-01431). On February 18, 2026, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR. On March 4, 2026, Netlist filed a Request for Director Review of the institution decision. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, the parties jointly dismissed this IPR. On March 3, 2026, Samsung filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘035 (Application No. 90/016,022). On April 24, 2026, the USPTO ordered reexamination. On June 16, 2026, Netlist filed a petition for the Director to Suspend & Terminate Reexamination. On June 30, 2026, Samsung filed an opposition to the petition. On April 3, 2026, Samsung filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘366 (Application No. 90/016,140). The USPTO ordered reexamination on July 1, 2026. On September 15, 2026, Netlist filed a petition for the Director to Suspend & Terminate Reexamination. On June 25, 2026, Micron filed a separate request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘366 (Application No. 90/016,418). On July 27, 2026, Netlist filed a Pre-order Paper (SNQ Brief). On August 11, 2026, Micron filed a Petition Request for Authorization to File a Response to Netlist’s Pre-order Paper. On August 25, 2026, the USPTO dismissed Micron’s petition, and on September 10, 2026, the USPTO denied the request for reexamination. On September 9, 2026, an unidentified party filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’731 Patent (Application No. 90/016,577). On October 9, 2026, Netlist filed a Pre-order Paper (SNQ brief). German Proceedings On March 31, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Micron in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP 2,454,735 (“EP735”) and EP 3,404,660 (“EP660”). On September 1, 2022, Micron initiated nullity proceedings on the two patents in the German Federal Patent Court. On March 27, 2023, the Dusseldorf Court rescheduled the infringement hearing until April 11, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. On July 6, 2026, Netlist withdrew its infringement claims on EP735. In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, Netlist also withdrew its infringement claims on EP660. On June 3, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Samsung in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP735 and EP660. On September 25, 2023, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. On July 6, 2026, Netlist withdrew its infringement claims on EP735. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, Netlist also withdrew its infringement claims on EP660. On July 26, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Google Cloud EMEA Limited, Google Germany GmbH, Redtec Computing GmbH, and Google LLC in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP735 and EP660. On March 18, 2024, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. On July 6, 2026, Netlist withdrew its infringement claims on EP735. In the nullity proceeding on EP735, the German Federal Patent Court issued its reasons of judgment revoking EP735 on April 18, 2024. Netlist filed an appeal on May 13, 2024. An oral hearing at the Federal Court of Justice took place on May 21, 2026, where the Federal Court of Justice issued a final revocation of EP735. In the nullity proceeding on EP660, the German Federal Patent Court issued its reasons of judgment revoking EP660 on February 18, 2025. Netlist filed an appeal on March 12, 2025. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, Samsung withdrew from the nullity proceeding on EP660. In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, Micron also withdrew from the nullity proceeding on EP660. 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 may 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 pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; (vi) severance and other related obligations; and (vii) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from our use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments we could be obligated to make. Historically, we have not been obligated to make significant payments as a result of these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 26, 2026

Note 6—Commitments and Contingencies

Contingent Legal Expenses

Any litigation, regardless of its outcome, is inherently uncertain, involves a significant dedication of resources, including time and capital, and diverts management’s attention from our other activities. As a result, any current or future claims, allegations, or challenges by or against third parties, whether eventually decided in our favor or settled, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the outcome of pending or future litigation and/or related patent reviews and reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect our ability to continue to sell our products, protect against competition in the current and expected markets for our products or license or otherwise monetize our intellectual property rights in the future.

We retain the services of law firms that specialize in patent licensing and enforcement and patent law in connection with our licensing and enforcement activities. These law firms are often paid an additional fee on a percentage of any negotiated fee, settlements or judgments awarded based on how and when the fees, settlements or judgments are obtained. During the third quarter and first nine months of 2026 we recognized $1.8 million of contingent fee in connection with our Samsung settlement. Contingent fees in connection with settlement agreements are incremental costs of obtaining a contract to be capitalized and amortized over the license term.

Litigation and Challenges to Netlist Patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”)

We are, from time to time, a party to litigation that arises in the normal course of our business operations. We own numerous patents and continue to seek to grow and strengthen our patent portfolio, which covers various aspects of our innovations and includes various claim scopes. We plan to pursue avenues to monetize our intellectual property portfolio, in which we would generate revenue by selling or licensing our technology, and we intend to vigorously enforce our patent rights against alleged infringers of such rights. We dedicate substantial resources to protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights, including with patent infringement proceedings we file against third parties and defense of our patents against challenges made by way of reexamination and review proceedings at the USPTO and PTAB.

On August 4, 2026, we entered into a five-year term Patent Cross License Agreement (the “Samsung License Agreement”) with Samsung, effective as of July 1, 2026 (the “Effective Date”). Pursuant to the Samsung License Agreement, each party granted the other party a worldwide, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, royalty-bearing (in the case of Samsung as licensee) or royalty-free (in the case of us as licensee) licenses to certain patents. In consideration of the license under our patents, Samsung paid the Company an upfront license fee of $200 million and agreed to pay quarterly license fees of up to $27.5 million for each of the twenty calendar quarters from the Effective Date through the second calendar quarter of 2031, with the amount of each quarterly license fee payment to be calculated in accordance with a revenue-based formula set forth in the Samsung License Agreement. These quarterly amounts may be subject to certain adjustments based on events occurring during later terms of the contract. Under the Samsung License Agreement, Samsung is responsible for all Korean withholding taxes applicable to the license fee payments and is required to gross up such payments so that the Company receives the full stated amounts. As a result, Samsung’s total payment obligation under the Samsung License Agreement, inclusive of estimated Korean withholding taxes payable to the Korean tax authorities, is up to approximately $898.2 million consisting of approximately $239 million in upfront fees and $32.9 million in fees per quarter.

On August 4, 2026, we entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Samsung Settlement Agreement”) effective as of the Effective Date with Samsung. The Samsung Settlement Agreement was entered into in settlement of the pending legal proceedings between us and Samsung identified therein.

On October 5, 2026, we entered into the Micron License Agreement (as defined below) and the Micron Settlement Agreement (as defined below) with Micron Technology, Inc., resolving our pending patent litigations with Micron (as defined below). Pursuant to the Micron Settlement Agreement, the parties will stipulate to dismiss the pending proceedings within the time period set forth in the Micron Settlement Agreement following receipt of the initial amount due to the Company pursuant to the Micron License Agreement. See Note 10 to these condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information.

Samsung Litigation

In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, the parties have jointly dismissed all litigation pending at the U.S. District Courts and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).

Micron Litigation

In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, the parties have jointly moved to dismiss all litigation pending at the U.S. District Courts, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County, and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). See Note 10 to these condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information.

We expect the other activities below to continue for the foreseeable future, with no guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection or litigation activities will be successful, or that we will be able to monetize our intellectual property portfolio.

Google Litigation

On December 4, 2009, Netlist filed a complaint against Google, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case no. 3:09-cv-05718), for infringement of the ’912 Patent, seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and a preliminary and permanent injunction. On October 17, 2022, the Court entered a stipulated order to stay this case until the resolution of the patent infringement suit against Samsung filed on August 1, 2022 in EDTX (Case No. 2:22-cv-00293), including any appeal thereof.

Kingston Litigation

On October 16, 2026, Netlist filed a complaint against Kingston Technology Company, Inc. and Kingston Technology Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case no. 8:26-cv-03047, for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,373,366 and 12,762,074, seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and equitable relief.

On November 4, 2026, Netlist filed a complaint against Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, Kingston Technology Far East Corp., Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Kingston Digital, Inc., and Kingston Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Kingston”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case no. 8:26-cv-03262, for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,025,731 (“the ’731 Patent”), 11,200,120 (“the ’120 Patent”), 11,914,481 (“the ’481 Patent”), and 12,675,407 (“the ’407 Patent”), seeking damages, a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, an exceptional case finding and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and equitable relief.

On November 5, 2026, Netlist filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), docket no. 337-3946, for patent infringement against Kingston and Lenovo (Beijing) Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Global Technology (United States) Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd., and Lenovo PC HK Ltd. (collectively, “Lenovo”), CDW Corp., CDW Logistics LLC, Ingram Micro, Inc., Insight Direct USA, Inc., Insight Enterprises, Inc., and Zones LLC (collectively, “Respondents”). The complaint alleges infringement of the ’731, ’120, ’481, and ’407 Patents by Kingston’s Double Data Rate 5^th Gen. (“DDR5”) Registered Dual Inline Memory Module (“RDIMM”) or solid state drive (“SSD”), products containing the same, and components thereof. Netlist seeks a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order from the ITC to stop Respondents’ infringing acts with respect to these infringing products.

Challenges to Netlist Patents at the USPTO and the PTAB

Although the Samsung Settlement Agreement and the Micron Settlement Agreement resolved our pending disputes with Samsung and Micron, certain proceedings before the USPTO, the PTAB and the CAFC remain pending. Samsung and Micron have withdrawn from the appeals that we filed with the CAFC from adverse PTAB final written decisions, but those appeals, which seek to reverse findings of unpatentability that would otherwise remain in effect as to all third parties, continue. In addition, ex parte reexaminations ordered by the USPTO proceed between the USPTO and the patent owner and are not terminated by a settlement with the requester, and certain reexamination requests were filed by unidentified parties that are not party to either settlement. We intend to continue to pursue these appeals and to defend our patents in these proceedings. The status of each such proceeding is described below.

On February 17, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00615). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent, IPR2023-00203. On April 17, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding Claim 16 of the ’912 Patent unpatentable. On September 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) (Case No. 2024-2304). In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, Samsung withdrew from this appeal. On September 9, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, Micron also withdrew from this appeal. On September 14, 2026, the CAFC issued an order asking the USPTO whether it would intervene in this appeal. The appeal remains pending.

On March 2, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’339 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00639). On November 18, 2022, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’339 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00204). On October 18, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On April 11, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1707). On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on this appeal. On September 2, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision.

On May 17, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’918 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00996). On January 6, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’918 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00406. On December 6, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On May 20, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1859).

On May 17, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’054 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-00999). On January 6, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’054 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00405). On December 5, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On May 20, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-1863). On June 3, 2024, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’918 Patent (Case No. 2024-1859). On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on the consolidated appeals of the IPRs of the ’918 and ’054 Patents. On September 2, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions.

On August 26, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’160 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-01427). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’160 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00883. On April 1, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On August 19, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC, Case No. 2024-2240.

On August 26, 2022, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’060 Patent (Case No. IPR2022-01428). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’060 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00882). On April 1, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On August 19, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2024-2241). On September 6, 2024, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’160 Patent (Case No. 2024-2240). On March 6, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on the consolidated appeals of the IPRs of the ’160 and ’060 Patents. On September 2, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions.

On January 10, 2023, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’215 Patent, Case No. IPR2023-00455. On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’215 Patent (Case No. IPR 2023-01142). On July 30, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On December 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1286).

On January 10, 2023, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’417 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-00454). On May 8, 2023, Micron also filed a Petition for IPR of the ’417 Patent (Case No. IPR2023-01141). On July 30, 2024, the PTAB issued a final written decision in the two IPRs finding all challenged claims unpatentable. On December 10, 2024, Netlist filed a notice of appeal to the CAFC (Case No. 2025-1296). On January 15, 2025, this appeal was consolidated with the above appeal on the IPR of the ’215 Patent (Case No. 2025-1286).

On September 9, 2026, the CAFC heard oral arguments on the consolidated appeals of the IPRs of the ’215 and ’417 Patents. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, Samsung withdrew from these consolidated appeals. In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, Micron also withdrew from these consolidated appeals. These consolidated appeals remain pending.

On August 14, 2025, an unidentified party filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’608 Patent (Application No. 90/015,449). On October 17, 2025, Netlist filed a petition to the Director to terminate this reexamination. On November 5, 2025, the unidentified party opposed. On November 7, 2025, the request for reexamination was granted by the examiner. On January 6, 2026, Netlist filed a renewed petition to the Director to terminate this reexamination. On January 15, 2026, the unidentified party opposed.

On August 25, 2025, Samsung filed a Petition for Post Grant Review (“PGR”) of the ’087 Patent (Case No. PGR2025-00071) and a Petition for IPR of the ’087 Patent (IPR2025-01402). On February 18, 2026, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR but granted institution of the PGR. On March 4, 2026, Netlist filed a Request for Director Review of the PGR institution decision. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, the parties jointly dismissed this PGR.

On August 29, 2025, Samsung filed a Petition for IPR of the ’731 Patent (IPR2025-01431). On February 18, 2026, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR. On March 4, 2026, Netlist filed a Request for Director Review of the institution decision. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, the parties jointly dismissed this IPR.

On March 3, 2026, Samsung filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘035 (Application No. 90/016,022). On April 24, 2026, the USPTO ordered reexamination. On June 16, 2026, Netlist filed a petition for the Director to Suspend & Terminate Reexamination. On June 30, 2026, Samsung filed an opposition to the petition.

On April 3, 2026, Samsung filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘366 (Application No. 90/016,140). The USPTO ordered reexamination on July 1, 2026. On September 15, 2026, Netlist filed a petition for the Director to Suspend & Terminate Reexamination. On June 25, 2026, Micron filed a separate request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘366 (Application No. 90/016,418). On July 27, 2026, Netlist filed a Pre-order Paper (SNQ Brief). On August 11, 2026, Micron filed a Petition Request for Authorization to File a Response to Netlist’s Pre-order Paper. On August 25, 2026, the USPTO dismissed Micron’s petition, and on September 10, 2026, the USPTO denied the request for reexamination.

On September 9, 2026, an unidentified party filed a request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’731 Patent (Application No. 90/016,577). On October 9, 2026, Netlist filed a Pre-order Paper (SNQ brief).

German Proceedings

On March 31, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Micron in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP 2,454,735 (“EP735”) and EP 3,404,660 (“EP660”). On September 1, 2022, Micron initiated nullity proceedings on the two patents in the German Federal Patent Court. On March 27, 2023, the Dusseldorf Court rescheduled the infringement hearing until April 11, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. On July 6, 2026, Netlist withdrew its infringement claims on EP735. In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, Netlist also withdrew its infringement claims on EP660.

On June 3, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Samsung in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP735 and EP660. On September 25, 2023, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. On July 6, 2026, Netlist withdrew its infringement claims on EP735. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, Netlist also withdrew its infringement claims on EP660.

On July 26, 2022, Netlist filed infringement claims against Google Cloud EMEA Limited, Google Germany GmbH, Redtec Computing GmbH, and Google LLC in Dusseldorf, Germany, seeking damages for infringement of European Patents EP735 and EP660. On March 18, 2024, the Dusseldorf Court stayed the case until the German Federal Patent Court decisions on the nullity proceedings on EP735 and EP660 either become final or are reversed or remanded on appeal. On July 6, 2026, Netlist withdrew its infringement claims on EP735.

In the nullity proceeding on EP735, the German Federal Patent Court issued its reasons of judgment revoking EP735 on April 18, 2024. Netlist filed an appeal on May 13, 2024. An oral hearing at the Federal Court of Justice took place on May 21, 2026, where the Federal Court of Justice issued a final revocation of EP735.

In the nullity proceeding on EP660, the German Federal Patent Court issued its reasons of judgment revoking EP660 on February 18, 2025. Netlist filed an appeal on March 12, 2025. In connection with the August 4, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Samsung, Samsung withdrew from the nullity proceeding on EP660. In connection with the October 5, 2026 settlement between Netlist and Micron, Micron also withdrew from the nullity proceeding on EP660.

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 may 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 pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; (vi) severance and other related obligations; and (vii) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from our use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments we could be obligated to make. Historically, we have not been obligated to make significant payments as a result of these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.