Litigation

Untitled case

Litigation

3:23-cv-05792

Patents at issue (1)

11568941PTAB: claims sustained

Summary

A district court case filed in the California Eastern District Court involving US patent 11568941.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

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.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defense counsel of record in this case. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the docket sheet and defense firm details.

Let me confirm the additional defense firms and appearances.

Defense Counsel of Record — Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-05792-RFL (N.D. Cal.)

Cross-reference flag (carried from prior sections): The case metadata in the prompt says "California Eastern District Court." Every source consulted confirms this case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, before Judge Rita F. Lin (Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson on discovery). I rely on the N.D. Cal. venue throughout.

Defendants: Micron Technology, Inc. ("MTI") and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC (collectively, "Micron"). Micron's lead trial counsel is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Silicon Valley/Menlo Park office); a second firm appears on the defense side in the discovery record (see below).

1. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP — primary defense counsel

Jared B. Bobrow — Lead trial counsel (docket-listed "LEAD ATTORNEY"); State Bar No. 133712

  • Firm/Office: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 1000 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (Silicon Valley)
  • Experience note: Longtime Orrick IP-litigation partner (practice 35+ years; 33+ years in patent litigation); admitted in the Federal Circuit, Ninth Circuit, First Circuit, and the E.D. Tex. and all four California district courts; the Orrick team's named contact on Micron's district-court filings and its pro hac vice anchor in the parallel IPRs. (Bobrow Decl. in support of PHV, IPR2024-00792/00911.)
  • Docket grounding: Notice of Appearance filed Nov. 29, 2023 (Dkt. 16).

Jeremy Jason Lang — Lead counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings; district-court counsel

  • Firm/Office: Orrick, Menlo Park, CA
  • Experience note: Registered patent practitioner (Reg. No. 73,604); designated Micron's Lead Counsel in the IPR/PGR campaign against YMTC (e.g., IPR2024-00792, IPR2025-00098, IPR2025-00244), making him the registered-practitioner anchor that permits Bobrow's PHV admission.
  • Docket grounding: Notice of Appearance filed Nov. 29, 2023 (Dkt. 17).

Diana M. Rutowski — Counsel (State Bar No. 233878)

  • Firm/Office: Orrick, Menlo Park, CA
  • Experience note: Orrick IP litigator listed on Micron's Patent L.R. 4-2 preliminary claim constructions and on the Westlaw counsel listing for the court's Dec. 12, 2024 discovery order.

K. Patrick Herman (Reg. No. 75,018) and Johannes Hsu (Reg. No. 74,689) — Counsel

  • Firm/Office: Orrick
  • Experience note: Named as Micron's backup PTAB counsel in the IPR/PGR service lists; their appearances are documented in the PTAB record rather than on the district-court docket I located.

Thomas James — Counsel

  • Firm/Office: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 353 N. Clark St., Suite 3600, Chicago, IL
  • Experience note: Listed on the Orrick service list for the Micron–YMTC IPRs (PTAB-side).

2. Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP — additional defense counsel of record

Asim M. Bhansali (SBN 194925) and Nicholas Alan Roethlisberger — Counsel for Defendants

  • Firm/Office: Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP, 555 Montgomery St., Suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94111
  • Experience note: Bhansali is a Bay Area litigator known for complex technology and competition disputes (e.g., In re Google Play Developer Antitrust Litig.). They appear as "for Defendants" in the counsel listing accompanying the court's Dec. 12, 2024 discovery order, 2024 WL 5103004 (N.D. Cal.).
  • Confidence caveat: I located these names only in the Westlaw reporter's counsel block for that order (and a related Minerva26 case page). I could not independently confirm a separate Notice of Appearance on the public docket for them in 3:23-cv-05792. Treat their role (co-counsel vs. issue-specific counsel, possibly tied to Micron's counterclaims or the consolidated YMTC II case, No. 3:24-cv-04223) as unverified.

3. Appellate counsel (Micron as appellant)

For the July 2, 2026 Federal Circuit appeal Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd., the appellant-side attorneys listed are Jason Lang, Jared Bobrow, Lauren Weber, Emily Villano, Alexandra Bursak, Robert Manhas, and Travis Jensen (per a UniCourt CAFC docket listing). Sourced from a third-party docket aggregator — verify against the Federal Circuit docket before relying on it.

4. In-house counsel

Not identified. No public filing located in this case names Micron in-house counsel by name (e.g., no signature block or appearance entry). Given the protective-order seal practice in this case (the court issued an order to show cause re unsealing Micron's First Amended Counterclaims on Aug. 9, 2024), it is possible in-house participation is documented only in sealed or non-appearance materials.

Notes on completeness

  • Local counsel: No separate "local counsel" designation is evidenced — Orrick's Menlo Park office and KBL's San Francisco office both sit within the N.D. Cal., so no out-of-district local-counsel appointment was required.
  • Sealed filings: Some defense filings in this case were filed under seal (Micron's amended counterclaims; source-code materials). Counsel appearing only in those documents would not surface in public docket text.
  • Plaintiff-side update (flagged, not part of this task): Prior sections list Ropes & Gray LLP as YMTC's counsel. Newer PTAB mandatory notices (e.g., IPR2024-00792, updated notice dated Dec. 4–5, 2025) designate Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP — with Andrew T. Radsch now at MTO along with Heather E. Takahashi and Kevin Yang — as YMTC's IPR counsel, indicating a possible change in plaintiff-side representation since the earlier sections were written.

Primary sources