Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, case number 5:24-cv-04223, was filed in the California Northern District Court on July 12, 2024. The plaintiff is Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. (YMTC), and the defendants are Micron Technology, Inc. and its subsidiary, Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC. YMTC is a Chinese state-owned semiconductor manufacturer specializing in NAND flash memory. Micron Technology, Inc. is a well-known American semiconductor company that produces various memory and storage products, including NAND flash, DRAM, and solid-state drives. Both parties are operating companies and major players in the global memory chip industry.

The case involves U.S. Patent 10,672,711. Without specific docket entries detailing the accused products, it is generally understood that patent infringement cases between competing memory manufacturers like YMTC and Micron typically involve their respective memory products and related technologies, such as NAND flash memory devices or their manufacturing processes. A technical sketch of patent 10,672,711, titled "Semiconductor structure and manufacturing method thereof," describes a semiconductor device that can enhance data storage density and improve performance by optimizing the structure and fabrication methods of memory cells. To date, the specific division within the Northern District of California and the assigned judge are not readily available in public search results. The Northern District of California is a prominent venue for patent litigation, particularly for technology companies, due to its specialized expertise in patent law and its proximity to Silicon Valley.

This case is notable due to the high-stakes competition and ongoing trade tensions between the US and China, especially concerning critical technologies like semiconductors. Litigation between major operating companies in this sector often reflects broader industry trends, including intense competition, rapid technological advancements, and strategic assertion of intellectual property rights. Given the parties' positions in the global memory market, the outcome could have implications for market share, technological licensing, and future research and development in the semiconductor industry. No information on parallel IPRs or specific market context making this case uniquely notable beyond the general industry significance is immediately available.

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed on July 12, 2024, by Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. (YMTC) against Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC, involves U.S. Patent 10,672,711, among others. The case is proceeding in the California Northern District Court under case number 5:24-cv-04223. Key legal developments in this case, including related parallel PTAB proceedings, are as follows:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: The initial complaint was filed by YMTC on July 12, 2024, in the California Northern District Court, initiating case 5:24-cv-04223.
• Asserted Claims and Accused Products: YMTC's infringement contentions, as disclosed in a document dated prior to a related IPR petition, assert infringement of claims 1-6 and 8-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,672,711. The accused products broadly include Micron's 96-Layer, 128-Layer, and 232-Layer NAND products, both individual NAND chips and products incorporating them, as well as Micron's DDR5 DRAM products.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

The litigation has been significantly impacted by parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by YMTC against Micron's patents at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the specific IPR petitions directly challenging U.S. Patent 10,672,711 are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, related IPRs have raised important procedural and substantive issues.

• USPTO Order to Show Cause (November 10, 2025): USPTO Director John Squires issued an Order to Show Cause in two IPRs filed by YMTC against Micron (IPR2025-00098 and IPR2025-00099, concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 8,945,996 and 10,872,903 respectively). The Order required YMTC to justify why its IPR petitions should proceed, given its designation on the U.S. Department of Commerce's Entity List. Director Squires questioned whether adjudicating petitions from an entity on the Entity List was an appropriate use of the Office's limited resources.
• China's Ministry of Commerce Response (November 18, 2025): China's Ministry of Commerce (MofCom) publicly responded to the USPTO's Order, stating that the U.S. action violated international obligations regarding intellectual property rights and constituted discriminatory restrictions on Chinese companies. MofCom indicated that China would monitor developments and take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies.
• Director Review Decision (January 15, 2026): USPTO Director John Squires issued a decision vacating the PTAB's institution decisions and denying YMTC's petitions in IPR2025-00098 and IPR2025-00099. The Director's decision focused on YMTC's failure to adequately identify all real parties in interest (RPIs) and address arguments that the Chinese government was an undisclosed RPI. Micron had argued that YMTC, being controlled by a foreign government, was ineligible to file an IPR under the Supreme Court's Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service ruling. While the Board declined to extend Return Mail's holding to a foreign government, the Director's ultimate decision to deny institution was based on the RPI disclosure issue.

As of the current date, June 16, 2026, the specific docket for 5:24-cv-04223 is not publicly available to detail further district court developments such as answers, counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery milestones, or trial events. The impact of the PTAB decisions on the district court litigation, such as any motions to stay, would typically follow these IPR outcomes.

Based on the available information, identifying the specific counsel of record for Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. (YMTC) in case 5:24-cv-04223 is challenging through public web searches alone. Docket entries for this specific case are not readily available in the search results to confirm counsel appointments.

However, some relevant information regarding YMTC's patent litigation activities and associated legal firms can be gleaned:

• Ropes & Gray: In a related development concerning Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against Micron patents (IPR2025-00098, IPR2025-00099), YMTC is represented by attorneys from Ropes & Gray. While this pertains to PTAB proceedings and not directly to 5:24-cv-04223, it indicates a firm YMTC uses for patent-related matters against Micron.
• In-house Counsel: YMTC has an Intellectual Property Department and actively seeks patent litigation attorneys for in-house roles, suggesting they have internal counsel involved in managing their patent docket and strategy. William Shen (weimin_shen@ymtc.com) was listed as a contact for such positions in 2019.
• Other Firms in Patent Prosecution: For patent prosecution, YMTC has worked with firms like Bayes Pllc, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, North America Intellectual Property Corporation, and Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt. While these are primarily for patent acquisition, some firms may also handle litigation.
• Previous Litigation against Micron: YMTC filed another patent infringement lawsuit against Micron and its subsidiaries in the Northern District of California (case 3:23-cv-05792) on November 9, 2023, alleging infringement of 8 U.S. patents related to 3D NAND Flash. In this prior case, Latham & Watkins LLP is listed as an attorney for one of the parties, though the specific client is not explicitly stated in the snippet.
• More Recent Litigation: A report from July 21, 2024, indicates YMTC filed another lawsuit against Micron in California, accusing infringement of 11 patents involving 3D NAND Flash and DRAM products. This appears to be a separate case from the one filed in November 2023, and potentially the case currently at issue (5:24-cv-04223) given the filing date aligns with the prompt's July 12, 2024, date. However, counsel for this specific July 2024 filing is not identified in the provided snippets.

Without direct access to the docket for 5:24-cv-04223, it is not possible to definitively identify the counsel of record for YMTC in this specific case. Filings for such cases are generally public records through PACER, but the search results do not contain that granular detail for 5:24-cv-04223.

The counsel of record for Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC in case 5:24-cv-04223 has been identified through a review of patent litigation associated with Micron and prominent IP law firms. Due to the recent filing date of July 12, 2024, direct PACER results for this specific case were not immediately accessible through general web searches for detailed attorney appearances. However, firms with a strong history of representing Micron in high-stakes patent litigation are likely candidates.

Based on available information, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP are frequently involved in patent litigation for Micron.

Here's a breakdown of likely counsel, based on their established relationship with Micron in patent disputes:

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

• Finnegan is one of the largest IP law firms globally, with a significant focus on patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret law, including litigation. They have a proven track record of representing clients in various patent disputes, including those involving semiconductor technology.
  • Lionel Lavenue (Partner): Based out of Finnegan's Washington, D.C. office. He has been cited in matters related to Micron Technology, specifically concerning Idaho's "Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act" in a dispute with Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies. This experience highlights his involvement in strategic patent enforcement and defense for Micron.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

• Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is recognized for its patent litigation expertise, particularly in high-stakes disputes between competitors across various sectors, including semiconductors. The firm has a deep bench of litigators with diverse technical backgrounds and extensive experience in major patent venues, including the Northern District of California.
  • Jared Bobrow (Partner): Based out of Weil Gotshal's Redwood Shores, California office. He was noted as being on the brief for Micron Technology in Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., a significant patent dispute concerning DRAM technology. This indicates his role as lead or key counsel for Micron in complex patent litigation.
  • Sven Raz (Attorney): Also noted on the brief for Micron Technology in Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., likely working with Jared Bobrow.
  • Jessica L. Davis (Attorney): Also noted on the brief for Micron Technology in Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., likely working with Jared Bobrow.

It is important to note that without direct docket entries for case 5:24-cv-04223, the specific attorneys who have entered appearances cannot be definitively confirmed. The attorneys listed above have a strong history of representing Micron in similar patent litigation and are highly probable to be involved. Filings for new cases often take some time to become fully publicly accessible with detailed attorney appearances.