Untitled case

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-05792, is unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, presided over by Judge Rita F. Lin, with Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson also assigned. The lawsuit was initiated on November 9, 2023, by Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. and Yangtze Memory Technologies, Inc. (collectively, YMTC), a Chinese operating company specializing in semiconductor memory. YMTC has accused Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC (collectively, Micron), a global manufacturer and supplier of memory components, of infringing its intellectual property. The accused products include various generations of Micron's NAND flash memory products, specifically its 232-Layer, 96-Layer, and 128-Layer NAND products (e.g., SSD model 2550, SSD model 1300 SATA, Micron BX500 2.5 480GB SSD), as well as products incorporating DDR5 DRAM technology.

The litigation centers on alleged infringement of multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,568,941, which describes a semiconductor device having improved contact structures, particularly for memory cells. YMTC's complaint alleges a 19-patent clash over 3D NAND technology. The procedural posture is active, with Micron having sought to stay the case pending inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a motion that YMTC opposed. The Northern District of California is a prominent venue for patent litigation, particularly given its proximity to the technology industry.

This case is notable due to several factors. It represents a significant patent dispute between two major players in the global semiconductor memory industry, highlighting intense competition and technological advancements in 3D NAND and DRAM. The litigation involves allegations of pre-suit knowledge. Furthermore, the case has seen disputes over discovery, including Micron's concerns about YMTC, a Chinese state-owned entity, seeking sensitive technical information, such as source code, with national security and foreign policy implications in the highly strategic semiconductor sector. Micron has also filed a separate, related patent infringement case against YMTC in the Eastern District of Texas, indicating a broader legal conflict between the two companies.

This report details the key legal developments and current status of the patent infringement litigation in the case Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05792-RFL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Please note that the initial prompt incorrectly stated the court as the "California Eastern District Court"; all search results confirm the case is in the Northern District of California. The patent at issue, 11568941, is among those asserted by the plaintiff.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filing (2023-11-09): Plaintiff Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. (YMTC) filed a patent infringement complaint against Defendants Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. YMTC initially asserted 19 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,568,941, and identified 231 asserted claims across these patents.
• Answer and Counterclaims (2024-02-16): Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC served their Answer to the First Amended Complaint and asserted counterclaims against YMTC and Yangtze Memory Technologies, Inc. (YMTI), alleging infringement of five Micron patents.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (2024-04-02): YMTC filed an opposition to Micron's motion to dismiss YMTC's counterclaims.
• Claim Narrowing Order (2024-09-18): The District Court ordered YMTC to reduce its number of asserted claims from 231 to a total of 70.
• Discovery Dispute - Source Code (2025-01-14 - 2025-05-23): On January 14, 2025, the District Court issued an order concerning the production of source code. Micron subsequently petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus, which was denied on February 26, 2025. On May 23, 2025, Micron filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the district court's order requiring paper copies of its source code.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (2025-03-14): Micron filed a motion to stay the district court case pending resolution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). YMTC opposed this motion on February 3, 2025. The District Court granted the motion to stay on March 14, 2025, pending the resolution of these PTAB proceedings.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Preliminary Claim Constructions (2024-09-18): Micron filed its preliminary claim constructions and extrinsic evidence on September 18, 2024. Although a Markman hearing was anticipated, the case was stayed before it could occur. YMTC noted in its opposition to the motion to stay that the court would likely have issued a claim construction if not for the stay. An expert, E. Fred Schubert, provided a declaration on behalf of Micron, relevant to claim construction.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Claim Narrowing (2025-01-24): YMTC narrowed its asserted claims to 70 in accordance with the court's September 18, 2024 order.
• Source Code Dispute (2025): The dispute over source code production, leading to appeals up to the Supreme Court, represents a significant and publicly reported discovery milestone.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• No trial events have occurred. Prior to the stay, a trial was projected to begin on June 15, 2026.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Case Stayed (2025-03-14): The litigation is currently stayed by the District Court pending the outcome of parallel IPR and PGR proceedings at the PTAB. YMTC has indicated that if the PTAB does not institute review, it intends to seek to lift the stay and resume litigation.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Multiple IPR/PGR Filings (Ongoing): Micron Technology, Inc. has filed numerous IPR and PGR petitions challenging YMTC's patents asserted in the district court, including IPR2025-00498, which is related to U.S. Patent 11,568,941. Other IPRs and PGRs related to the case include IPR2025-00034, IPR2025-00035, IPR2025-00117, IPR2025-00118, IPR2025-00189, IPR2025-00190, IPR2025-00191, IPR2025-00228, IPR2025-00244, IPR2025-00245, IPR2025-0294, and PGR2025-00021.
• Impact on Litigation: The PTAB is considering discretionary denial of some IPRs, weighing factors such as issue overlap and the existence of the district court stay. The district court's stay is directly contingent on the resolution of these PTAB proceedings.

The plaintiff in the case 3:23-cv-05792, identified as Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. (YMTC), is represented by attorneys from Ropes & Gray LLP. The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, not the Eastern District as initially stated in the prompt.

The counsel of record for Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. includes the following attorneys from Ropes & Gray LLP:

• James R. Batchelder
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Batchelder is a partner and co-chair of the firm's IP litigation practice, with extensive experience in patent litigation across various technologies, including semiconductors, software, and medical devices.
• Andrew T. Radsch
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Radsch is a partner whose practice focuses on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes, often involving complex technologies in the electronics and software sectors.
• Stepan Starchenko
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Starchenko is a patent litigation attorney with experience in federal district courts and before the International Trade Commission.
• James F. Mack
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Mack focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement actions for technology companies.
• Nancy N. Attalla
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Ms. Attalla's practice involves intellectual property litigation, particularly in patent disputes concerning various technologies.
• Rachael Bacha
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Ms. Bacha is a patent litigator who represents clients in disputes across a range of industries, often handling complex technical subject matter.
• Nicole S. L. Pobre
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Pobre's practice includes patent litigation in federal district courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

The identified attorneys were listed on the initial complaint for patent infringement filed by Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. on November 9, 2023.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["3:23-cv-05792 Northern District of California defendant counsel", "Micron Technology Inc. patent litigation counsel", "Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC patent litigation counsel", "Micron Technology Inc. in-house counsel"]))
thought
The user wants to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in the patent infringement case 3:23-cv-05792 in the Northern District of California.
The defendants are Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC.

I need to find:

• Attorney names
• Their roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel, in-house)
• Their law firms and office locations
• A one-line note on relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases if available.

I will use web search, prioritizing docket sheets (if accessible via general search) and reputable legal news sites.Here's an overview of the counsel of record representing the defendants, Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC, in the patent infringement case 3:23-cv-05792.

Current Counsel for Defendants Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC:

Based on available docket information and general firm representation in patent cases for Micron, the following counsel are identified:

• Shane D. Anderson
  • Role: Was counsel of record.
  • Firm: Likely associated with a firm often representing Micron in patent litigation. He filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC on February 27, 2025. However, he later filed a Notice of Withdrawal on April 17, 2026.
  • Note: Given his withdrawal, he is no longer actively representing the defendants in this specific case as of April 17, 2026.

As Shane D. Anderson has withdrawn, identifying the current active lead counsel from the provided search results is challenging without direct access to the most recent docket entries that would list active appearances. Publicly accessible summaries (like RPX Empower or PacerMonitor) provide case information but do not always keep a real-time, comprehensive list of all active attorneys and their specific roles, especially after withdrawals.

In-House Counsel:

• Michael Ray
  • Role: Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary at Micron Technology, Inc.
  • Firm: Micron Technology, Inc.
  • Note: Michael Ray is responsible for Micron's global legal, compliance, and intellectual property functions. He has nearly 30 years of legal experience, including a significant tenure at Western Digital, where he held various leadership roles in the legal department. He was appointed to his current position at Micron in January 2024. While not external litigation counsel, he oversees the legal strategy for Micron.

Note on comprehensive counsel identification:
Without direct PACER access to the latest docket entries specifically detailing current appearances for the defendants following the noted withdrawal, a complete and definitive list of all active counsel, including lead and local counsel, and their firms and office locations, cannot be fully provided at this time. The provided information indicates the dynamic nature of counsel representation in this case.