Untitled case

Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC (AMT), a non-practicing entity (NPE) based in Texas, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against SK Hynix Inc., a South Korean semiconductor manufacturer, in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) under case number 2:24-cv-01078. AMT acquired the asserted patents from Winbond Electronics (Nuvoton Technology Corporation Japan). The complaint alleges that SK Hynix directly and indirectly infringes AMT's patents through the manufacture, use, sale, and importation of various semiconductor memory modules, including NAND flash memory modules (such as SSDs like the SK Hynix Gold P31 SSD and Platinum P41 SSD, USB flash drives, and bare dies) and DRAM modules. The suit also indirectly names major tech companies like Dell, Microsoft, and Nvidia, alleging they incorporate SK Hynix's infringing memory modules into their products. The case is presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

The asserted patents include U.S. Patent No. 7,777,557, titled "Booster circuit," which generally claims a booster circuit structure designed for more efficient operation with a reduced footprint. Also asserted is U.S. Patent No. 7,969,231, entitled "Internal Voltage Generating Circuit," which aims for a more efficient internal voltage generating circuit with a reduced footprint. U.S. Patent No. 8,593,888, "Semiconductor memory device," broadly claims a semiconductor memory device capable of erasing and writing memory contents in a memory cell using an electric signal, emphasizing a reduced footprint. Additionally, U.S. Patent No. 7,920,318, also related to "Booster circuit," and U.S. Patent No. 8,400,835, relating to semiconductor memory devices, are part of the asserted portfolio.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. The Eastern District of Texas, particularly the Marshall Division, is widely regarded as a plaintiff-friendly venue with a reputation for accelerated trial schedules and a history of high success rates for patentees. The court's practice of generally denying motions to stay pending inter partes review (IPR) institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), especially when no IPRs have yet been instituted, is evident in this case, as SK Hynix's motion for a stay was denied as premature. Indeed, the PTAB has already rejected several IPR petitions filed by SK Hynix against Advanced Memory Technologies' patents, highlighting a growing trend where NPEs assert patents related to core technologies in high-value markets like semiconductors, often leading to significant legal costs for operating companies. A trial in this case is scheduled for October 5, 2026.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. SK hynix Inc. (2:24-cv-01078)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involves Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC (AMT) as the plaintiff and SK hynix Inc. as the defendant. The case primarily concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,777,557, among others.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing a Complaint for Patent Infringement against SK hynix Inc. on December 30, 2024.
• Amended Complaint: An Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement was filed on April 2, 2025, asserting infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,777,557.
• Defendant's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions: SK hynix Inc. served its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on March 11, 2025.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Denied: On September 3, 2025, the District Court denied SK hynix's motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of an inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Claim Construction (Markman):

• As of December 8, 2025, a Markman hearing or expert discovery related to claim construction had not yet commenced in the District Court proceeding.

Discovery Milestones:

• Fact discovery was ongoing as of December 8, 2025, with only one deposition having occurred, which was related to the parties' venue dispute.

Trial Events:

• A trial in the District Court proceeding is scheduled to begin on October 5, 2026.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active and is proceeding towards trial. No final judgment, dismissal, or settlement has been publicly reported as of May 26, 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR Petitions: SK hynix Inc. filed an inter partes review petition with the PTAB challenging at least one of the asserted patents, specifically U.S. Patent No. 8,593,888, which was also asserted in the district court case. The IPR is designated IPR2025-01451.
• Effect on Litigation: The PTAB is considering whether to exercise discretionary denial of the IPR petition under the Fintiv factors. Arguments have been made that the district court proceeding, with its trial scheduled for October 5, 2026, would likely resolve the same invalidity issues well before the PTAB's projected final written decision deadline of March 1, 2027, in the IPR. This issue was central to the District Court's denial of SK hynix's motion to stay. While some IPR filings mention the '888 patent specifically, the district court case asserts multiple patents including the '557 patent. Additional specific IPRs for U.S. Patent No. 7,777,557 would need further detailed search of PTAB dockets.

Plaintiff Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC, in case 2:24-cv-01078, is represented by a team of attorneys, including local counsel and those from firms specializing in intellectual property litigation. The identified counsel of record for the plaintiff are:

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Experience Note: Ms. Fair's firm, Miller Fair Henry PLLC, is listed as counsel in the PacerMonitor record for this case, suggesting a role in representing the plaintiff.

• Claire Abernathy Henry

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Experience Note: Ms. Henry's firm, Miller Fair Henry PLLC, is listed as counsel in the PacerMonitor record for this case, indicating involvement in representing the plaintiff.

Additional attorneys may be involved from other firms, but the PacerMonitor listing specifically associates Miller Fair Henry PLLC with the plaintiff in this case. The search results also listed attorneys from Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Llp, and The Dacus Firm, PC, but these are typically associated with the defendant, SK Hynix Inc., as seen in other related patent litigation and PTAB filings. For instance, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. is explicitly listed under SK Hynix Inc. in the PacerMonitor entry.

The individuals Michael J. Fleming, David P. Gersch, James R. Lucas, and D. Scot Jenkins were mentioned in the initial search plan. However, a detailed review of the search results did not explicitly link these specific attorneys to the plaintiff, Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC, in case 2:24-cv-01078. While some of these attorneys have extensive patent litigation experience in general, there is no direct evidence in the provided search snippets to confirm their representation of this plaintiff in this specific case. Therefore, their roles cannot be definitively stated for this particular lawsuit based on the provided information.

The defendant in this patent infringement case, Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc. (2:24-cv-01078), is SK Hynix Inc.. The counsel of record representing SK Hynix Inc. primarily consists of attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with local counsel from The Dacus Firm, P.C..

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Counsel for Defendant SK Hynix Inc.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

• Sean S. Pak

  • Role: Co-Chair of the firm's National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice; likely lead counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: An experienced trial lawyer in patent, trade secret, and copyright litigation. Notably served as lead counsel for Samsung Electronics in a patent trial in Marshall, Texas, securing a complete defense verdict, and co-lead counsel for Qualcomm in its global dispute against Apple. He has an electrical engineering and computer science background from MIT.

• Andrew M. Holmes

  • Role: Partner, trial lawyer, and registered patent attorney; likely lead or significant trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Represents companies in patent, trade secret, and copyright disputes at trial, the ITC, and before the USPTO. Has experience with technologies including semiconductors, telecommunications, and artificial intelligence, and has handled patent litigation involving graphics processing and various consumer electronics.

• Brian L. Saunders

  • Role: Of Counsel. Identified as "Back-up Counsel for Petitioner" (SK Hynix) in related IPR proceedings.
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Focuses on complex intellectual property disputes, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret litigation across various technical fields, including integrated circuits and computer software.

• Gyushik Jang (also known as Kevin Jang)

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Recognized as "Of Counsel" in 2024, indicating substantial experience in the firm's primary area of complex intellectual property litigation, particularly patents.

• Zhaoxin Yin

  • Role: Attorney, likely associate or counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Specific detailed experience for this attorney in patent litigation for SK Hynix in this context was not explicitly found in the provided search results, beyond their listing as counsel for SK Hynix.

• James M. Glass

  • Role: Lead Counsel for Petitioner (SK Hynix) in related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Lead counsel in IPR proceedings concerning the patents at issue in the district court case, demonstrating significant patent litigation and post-grant review experience.

The Dacus Firm, P.C.

• Deron R. Dacus
  • Role: Trial attorney; serves as local counsel given his firm's location and extensive practice in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Firm & Office Location: The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, TX.
  • Experience: A board-certified civil trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, having represented clients in over 1,000 patent cases in the district.

One attorney, Ashle Page, is listed on PacerMonitor without an associated firm. Specific information regarding her role (e.g., in-house counsel, or if her firm was omitted) or relevant patent litigation experience was not readily available in the search results.