Untitled case

This case involves Netlist, Inc., a U.S.-based operating company that designs and sells high-performance solid-state drives (SSDs) and modular memory subsystems, specializing in hybrid memory solutions for enterprise and cloud data centers. Netlist asserts six patents against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a global technology conglomerate headquartered in South Korea and a major producer of semiconductors and consumer electronics; Google LLC, an American multinational technology company focused on internet services, cloud computing, and hardware, and a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.; and Super Micro Computer, Inc., an American information technology company that manufactures high-performance servers and storage systems.

The accused products are various Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) devices, products containing these devices, and their components. This includes DDR5 RDIMMs, MRDIMMs, SODIMMs, UDIMMs, and HBM3/3E memory, as well as servers and cloud-based systems from Google and Super Micro that incorporate these memory components. The six asserted patents are:

• US12373366: Pertains to memory modules with on-module power management, specifically circuitry adopted in DDR5 memory modules.
• US10025731: (A specific technical sketch is not readily available in the provided snippets, but it is generally related to memory technologies).
• US10268608: Focuses on buffer circuits incorporated into memory modules to electrically isolate memory devices, thereby maintaining signal integrity and speed when additional devices are added.
• US10217523: Covers multi-mode memory module technology, particularly reading on DDR4 LRDIMM (Load Reduced DIMM) products used in servers and data centers.
• US9824035: Relates to buffer circuits that provide dedicated data paths for each signal line within memory modules, enhancing speed and efficiency.
• US12308087: Claims an arrangement of stacked dies and interconnects for memory architectures, enabling high-bandwidth memory operations and mitigating load issues.

This litigation is proceeding at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) as Investigation No. 337-TA-3854, titled "Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof." The ITC is a unique venue because it can issue exclusion orders, which bar the importation of infringing products into the U.S., and cease-and-desist orders, which can prevent domestic sales. This venue is particularly significant for Netlist as it seeks to prevent the unauthorized importation and sale of infringing memory products. The investigation is currently active and pending before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

The case is notable due to Netlist's history as an intellectual property assertion entity (though it also has product sales) and its ongoing, high-stakes patent litigation against major technology companies like Samsung and Google, with previous jury verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in Netlist's favor for infringement of other patents. The denial of institution for IPR2026-00018 on procedural grounds highlights the challenges in challenging Netlist's patents at the PTAB. Moreover, the joint public interest comment filed by the USPTO and USDOJ in support of Netlist's position, urging the ITC to enforce valid patent rights through exclusion orders, is a significant and rare development, underscoring the potential industry impact and the importance of this case for patent enforcement in the semiconductor memory sector.

The litigation between Netlist and Samsung, Google, and Super Micro Computer involves multiple venues and legal developments. The primary ongoing action is before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Investigation No. 337-TA-3854, titled "Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof."

Filing & Initial Pleadings (ITC Investigation 337-TA-3854)

• Complaint Filing: Netlist, Inc. filed its complaint with the ITC on September 29, 2025, alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint named Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Google LLC, and Super Micro Computer, Inc. as respondents. Netlist seeks exclusion and cease-and-desist orders against infringing DRAM and high-bandwidth memory (HBM) products.
• Patents Asserted: The complaint asserts six Netlist patents: US12373366, US10025731, US10268608, US10217523, US9824035, and US12308087. These patents cover DDR5 memory modules (RDIMM, UDIMM, SODIMM, MRDIMM) and HBM.
• Accused Products: The accused products include Samsung's DDR5 generation DIMMs, Samsung HBM2/2E, HBM3/3E, and HBM4/4E packages, Google's fifth, sixth, and seventh generation Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) utilizing Samsung HBMs, Google Cloud Platform (GCP) virtual machines and cloud storage services utilizing Samsung DIMMs and HBMs, and Super Micro servers and computing systems utilizing Samsung's HBMs and DIMMs.

Procedural Developments (ITC Investigation 337-TA-3854)

• Institution of Investigation: The ITC formally launched its investigation, 337-TA-3854, on January 5, 2026.
• Public Interest Comments: On December 4, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly submitted a public-interest statement to the ITC. They argued that enforcing valid patent rights through exclusion orders serves the public interest and urged the Commission to dismiss speculative harms raised by respondents.
• Procedural Schedule: An Amended Adopted Procedural Schedule (AAPS) has been established. Key upcoming dates include the close of fact discovery, including all testing, by July 8, 2026. A Markman hearing is scheduled for April 21, 2026, with related briefs filed in late March and early April 2026. Initial Post-Hearing Briefs are due by December 11, 2026.
• Current Status: The investigation is currently active and pending before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings & Their Effect on Litigation

Several of Netlist's patents have been challenged in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB, and some of these challenges have reached the Federal Circuit.

• US12373366: An IPR, IPR2026-00018, was filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. against Netlist, Inc. on November 7, 2025, concerning US12373366. This IPR was not instituted on procedural grounds, with a decision on April 28, 2026. A Director Discretionary Denial decision was issued for this IPR.
• US10268608: This patent was upheld by the PTAB in December 2024, finding it not invalid in an IPR brought by Samsung. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed this PTAB ruling on December 11, 2025. This patent was also challenged in two other IPRs by Micron, both of which were denied institution. The '608 patent was part of a November 2024 jury verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas where Netlist was awarded $118 million against Samsung.
• US10217523: The CAFC issued a judgment on March 6, 2025, affirming the PTAB's IPR decision upholding the validity of Netlist's US10217523. However, other sources indicate that the Federal Circuit affirmed the cancellation of this patent on March 5, 2025, meaning Netlist's patent did not survive the validity challenge. This is a direct contradiction in the provided information. If the cancellation is accurate, it would extinguish Netlist's rights under this patent. This patent is also asserted in the ITC investigation.
• US10489314: While not one of the six patents in the current ITC case, the CAFC affirmed a PTAB final written decision upholding the validity of Netlist's U.S. Patent No. 10,489,314 on February 23, 2026, in an IPR brought by Micron. This is notable as it indicates a trend of Netlist's patents being affirmed in validity challenges.

Other Litigation History with Samsung and Google:

The ITC complaint is part of a broader, long-running dispute between Netlist and Samsung, and Netlist and Google.

• Samsung:
  • Netlist and Samsung had a Joint Development and License Agreement (JDLA) from November 2015, which Netlist terminated in July 2020 due to Samsung's alleged failure to fulfill orders.
  • A jury in the Central District of California found that Samsung materially breached the JDLA in March 2025.
  • In the Eastern District of Texas, Netlist won two patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung, resulting in jury verdicts of $303.15 million in April 2023 for infringement of five patents and $118 million in November 2024 for infringement of three patents.
• Google: Netlist has also filed patent infringement suits against Google in Northern California district court.

Netlist, Inc. is represented by several law firms in its ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-3854 against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro Computer.

The primary firms representing Netlist in this ITC case are:

• Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox:

  • Daniel E. Yonan (Director, Lead Counsel) - Based in Washington D.C. He is recognized for his work in ITC litigation and electronics patent litigation.
  • Donald R. Banowit (Director, Counsel) - Based in Washington D.C. Specializes in ITC litigation and electronics patent litigation.
  • William H. Milliken (Director, Counsel) - Based in Washington D.C. Specializes in ITC litigation and electronics patent litigation.
  • Richard M. Bemben (Director, Counsel) - Based in Washington D.C. Specializes in ITC litigation and electronics patent litigation.
  • Lauren A. Watt (Counsel) - Based in Washington D.C. Specializes in ITC litigation and electronics patent litigation.

• Irell & Manella:

  • Jason Sheasby (Lead Counsel) - The legal team from Irell & Manella is led by Jason Sheasby. He has a strong track record in patent litigation, including significant jury verdicts.

Other firms that have represented Netlist in broader patent litigation, which may also be involved in the current ITC case or related matters, include:

• Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP - This firm has a large intellectual property practice and handles complex IP disputes. They have offices across North America, Europe, and Asia, including Los Angeles, where the firm is headquartered.
• Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP - This firm has IP litigation lawyers experienced in patent, copyright, and trade secret matters, and they are open to contingency fee arrangements or litigation financing. Jonathan Rotter is listed as a contact for patent litigation.
• Gillam & Smith LLP - This firm, with offices in Marshall and Tyler, Texas, has extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal court patent infringement litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. Their attorneys, including Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr., Melissa R. Smith, Andrew T. "Tom" Gorham, J. Travis Underwood, and McKellar Karr, have a strong trial record.
• Fish & Richardson P.C. - A global patent, intellectual property, and commercial litigation law firm with over 400 attorneys. They are highly active in patent litigation across various venues, including the ITC and PTAB, and are known for their technical expertise, with many attorneys holding STEM degrees.
• Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP - Jonathan K. Waldrop, Chair of Kasowitz's Intellectual Property group, has represented Netlist in other patent litigation. He is known for representing industry-leading companies in patent and trademark litigation and has been recognized as a Top Plaintiff Lawyer and Top Intellectual Property Lawyer in California. His practice includes complex technology cases, and he has successfully represented clients like Google in patent cases. He is based in San Francisco.
• Wiley Rein LLP - This firm has a patent practice with a 30-year record of successful outcomes, representing both accused infringers and patent holders in high-stakes patent disputes. They have expertise in technology related to the Internet, satellite and wireless communications, computer software and hardware, consumer electronics, and semiconductors, and are experienced in ITC proceedings.

Netlist's ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-3854 (also referred to as 337-TA-1472) involves Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Google LLC, and Super Micro Computer, Inc. as respondents. Here's what is known about their legal representation:

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (and its U.S. affiliates Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.)

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Note: Kirkland & Ellis is a prominent firm with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation, including Section 337 investigations at the ITC.
• In-house Counsel:
  • Arvind Iyengar (Senior Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics). He is involved in strategies for navigating ITC proceedings.
  • Note: Samsung Research America also seeks patent litigators for in-house counsel roles with broad patent litigation experience, including ITC investigations.

Google LLC

• Firm: While specific outside counsel for Google in this particular ITC case aren't explicitly named in the immediate search results, Google frequently uses outside counsel and also has a substantial in-house legal department.
• In-house Counsel: Google's legal department encourages measured risk-taking and employs corporate and product counsel. They also partner with law firms to diversify the pipeline of the legal profession.

Super Micro Computer, Inc.

• Firm: Fulbright and Jaworski.
  • Note: Fulbright and Jaworski is now part of Norton Rose Fulbright, a global law firm with experience in intellectual property and litigation. Yitai Hu, Super Micro's General Counsel, was previously a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP.
• In-house Counsel:
  • Yitai Hu (General Counsel & Senior Vice President, Corporate Development). Mr. Hu was promoted to this role to expand Super Micro's in-house legal department and has nearly 30 years of legal expertise, including intellectual property rights. He also previously worked as a partner at several AmLaw 50 law firms.