Samsung DE '01589 counterclaim litigation

Can someone identify which DE litigation this a 'counterclaim' against NLST's claim ?

It is not a part of the Stokd charts...

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Samsung) alleges that Netlist, Inc. (Netlist) has used its patent rights to violate the antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act Section 2 (15 U.S.C. § 2). See Dkt. 1-1 at ¶¶ 181-202. Netlist has moved to dismiss, arguing inter alia that Samsung has failed adequately to plead either that Netlist has market power in a relevant market or has engaged in exclusionary conduct. Dkt. 17 at 9-16. Samsung counters that it sufficiently pled each. Dkt. 23 at 8-13

The United States takes no position on the adequacy of these specific allegations or on the ultimate disposition of the motion. The United States writes here to call the Court’s attention to a Statement of Interest that it recently filed in Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Interdigital, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00996-MN, Dkt. 28 (D. Del. Oct. 6, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1416101/dl (Disney SOI).1 That statement, as relevant here, describes how courts should apply antitrust laws to standards-development activity and legal principles regarding establishing market power and exclusionary conduct in that context.

(“[A]s is the rule for all patents, there is no presumption of market power simply because a patent has been incorporated into a standard.”).

Samsung argues that it has adequately alleged exclusionary conduct by claiming Netlist “falsely represented . . . that it would license any essential patents on RAND [reasonable and nondiscriminatory] terms,” and that the standards-development organization “relied on these RAND-licensing assurances as it produced industry-wide standards.”

The United States notes that, under a Broadcom theory of liability, “it is the distortion of the competitive process, not the level of the royalty rate later demanded by the patent owner, that implicates the antitrust laws.” Disney SOI at 13. By contrast, “charging high prices does not by itself constitute exclusionary conduct.” Id. A violation of contractual obligations, including contractual requirements that a patentee negotiates for RAND terms, would not “in and of itself, constitute exclusionary or anticompetitive conduct cognizable under the antitrust laws.” Id. at 14.