Litigation

Untitled case

Active

1:25-cv-01036

Patents at issue (1)

7920018PTAB: discretionary denial

Summary

An active patent infringement case involving US patent 7920018 filed in the Texas Western District Court.

Case overview & background

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

Case Overview and Background: Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.

This is an active patent infringement lawsuit, case number 1:25-cv-01036, filed in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff is Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC (AMT), a Texas limited liability company, which operates as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The defendant is Micron Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a prominent operating company in the semiconductor industry. AMT alleges that Micron infringes its patents through the provision of various semiconductor devices, including NAND flash memory modules (such as flash bare dies, flash package dies, PCI devices, solid-state drives, and USB flash drives) and DRAM modules (including DDR, HBM, and LPDDR).

The primary patent at issue in this case is US Patent 7920018, which is part of a larger portfolio of four patents asserted in this action and originates from former Winbond Electronics (Nuvoton Technology) assets. While the specific technical details of 7920018 require a direct patent search, the overall context indicates it pertains to semiconductor technology relevant to memory devices. The procedural posture shows that District Judge Robert Pitman has referred a sealed motion to transfer to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower for a report and recommendation, indicating potential early-stage venue challenges.

This case is notable for several reasons. The Western District of Texas has been a popular venue for NPEs due to its patent-friendly environment, a trend significantly influenced by Judge Alan Albright's handling of patent cases, though recent assignment policies aim to distribute cases more broadly. AMT's decision to file here aligns with established NPE assertion patterns. Furthermore, the litigation against Micron is not isolated; AMT has also initiated parallel lawsuits against SK Hynix in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting overlapping patents from the same Winbond/Nuvoton portfolio, which are also subject to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The semiconductor industry continues to be a hotbed for patent litigation, and this case reflects the ongoing strategies of PAEs to monetize patent portfolios acquired from operating companies.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

As of May 25, 2026, the patent infringement case Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Case number: 1:25-cv-01036) in the Texas Western District Court, involving US patent 7920018, has not yet been filed.

According to available docket information, the filing date for this case is listed as June 30, 2025. Since this date is in the future, there are no legal developments, motions, claim construction outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, verdicts, settlements, dismissals, judgments, appeals, or parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings to report as of today. The case is therefore active but in its pre-filing stage.

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

Good initial hits. Let me dig into the docket, attorney appearances, and the pending Idaho transfer.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC

Bottom line

Plaintiff Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC ("AMT") is represented by Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as lead trial counsel. Justin A. Nelson (Susman Godfrey, Houston) is the formally designated lead attorney — he signed the complaint and filed the Notice of Designation of Lead Attorney on the filing date. Ian M. Gore (Susman Godfrey, Seattle) filed the first separate appearance the same day. Susman Godfrey has continued as plaintiff's counsel after the case moved out of the Western District of Texas, where it added an Idaho local-counsel relationship.

Confirmed counsel of record (W.D. Tex. appearances, June 30, 2025)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Justin A. Nelson Lead counsel (designated per Dkt. 6) Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX (1000 Louisiana St., Ste. 5100) Signed the original complaint (Dkt. 1) and the Notice of Designation of Lead Attorney (Dkt. 6). Longtime Susman Godfrey patent trial lawyer — Green Mountain Glass v. Saint-Gobain/Ardagh ($50.3M Del. verdict for plaintiff), Fractus v. Samsung (co-lead; $23M verdict/$38M judgment), IAM Patent 1000 and Managing IP "Patent Star"; former clerk to Justice O'Connor.
Ian M. Gore Counsel of record; lead courtroom attorney Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA (401 Union St., Ste. 3000) Dkt. 7 — NOTICE of Attorney Appearance (June 30, 2025). Patent/IP experience includes Fitbit v. Jawbone (ITC — obtained ruling invalidating Fitbit's asserted patents) and Waymo v. Uber (N.D. Cal.). Harvard Law; clerked for Judge Dennis Jacobs (2d Cir.).
Andrew J. Nassar Counsel of record Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Linked to this docket (1:25-cv-01036) in attorney-tracking records; appeared for plaintiff at the post-transfer status conference on Aug. 26, 2026.
Ravi Bhalla Counsel of record Susman Godfrey L.L.P., New York, NY Law360 attorney page lists this case (June 30, 2025, W.D. Tex.) among his matters.
Kalpana Srinivasan Counsel (appellate/strategy-level; Susman Godfrey managing partner) Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA Appears on the plaintiff-side attorney list for the transferred case; nationally known IP/appellate litigator (e.g., SAS Institute v. Iancu at the Supreme Court). Role in this case beyond case listing is not independently documented in the retrieved material.

Caveat on sealed/limited records: The W.D. Tex. docket entries accessible through free sources stop at the July 2025 filings (the paid PACER docket has since been superseded by the transfer). Several plaintiff-side appearances after that point are only visible via the transferred case's docket, so the complete list of Texas-era appearances (including any pro hac vice applications) cannot be fully reconstructed from free sources. There is no indication of in-house AMT counsel appearing — AMT is an NPE with no in-house litigation department identified.

Local counsel

  • Patrick Casey Bageant — local counsel (Idaho), Hollystone Law, Boise, ID. Bageant appears as plaintiff's local counsel per the transferred-case docket and participated in the Aug. 26, 2026 status conference alongside Gore and Nassar. He is the Boise-based local rule/venue lawyer rather than a Texas-era appointment.
  • No separate Texas local counsel was identified in the docket entries retrieved. Susman Godfrey's Houston office supplied the Texas-bar presence (Nelson).

Important context: the case has moved, and the prior summary is wrong

The previously generated sections of this case are materially incorrect and should be corrected:

  1. The "Key legal developments" section is wrong. It states that as of May 25/26, 2026 the case "has not yet been filed" and that the June 30, 2025 filing date "is in the future." The case was filed on June 30, 2025 — Docket Nos. 1–7 were all entered that day (complaint, summons request, jury demand, certificate of interested parties, AO-120, lead-attorney designation, Gore appearance). The premise that no filings or rulings exist is false; among other things, the docket reflects a motion to transfer routed to Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower and an order denying a motion to stay pending IPR (cited in Micron's PTAB petition papers).
  2. The "Defendant representatives" section is also wrong. Micron did appear — through Fish & Richardson P.C. (Michael J. McKeon, Adam R. Shartzer, Brian J. Livedalen, Karolina I. Jesien, David M. Hoffman, Timothy W. Riffe) with Holland & Hart LLP (Teague Ian Donahey) and Christopher McCurdy as local/Idaho counsel. See the service list and appearances in the transferred case.
  3. The case is no longer pending in W.D. Tex. The W.D. Tex. docket shows status "Closed", and a companion docket with the identical caption — Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00420 (D. Idaho, Senior Judge B. Lynn Winmill) — lists "Case in other court: Texas Western, 1:25-cv-01036" and carries the case's docket numbering forward (e.g., Dkt. 113 motion to stay; Dkt. 114 Aug. 26, 2026 status conference; Dkt. 115 Sept. 1, 2026 memorandum decision denying Micron's motion to disqualify plaintiff's expert Dr. Martin G. Walker; Dkt. 116 Sept. 2, 2026 plaintiff's notice of non-opposition to defendant's motion to stay). The transfer-factor analysis in the CourtListener opinion (which discussed Boise-based evidence and subpoena reach in the District of Idaho) is consistent with the case having been transferred to Idaho under § 1404(a). Treat D. Idaho 1:26-cv-00420 as the live docket.
  4. Minor factual correction: the case overview describes AMT as a Texas LLC. A Korean IP-NAVI dispute report describes AMT as formed in Delaware in March 2024, holding semiconductor patents transferred from Panasonic to Winbond Electronics (now Nuvoton Technology Japan Corp.). The Delaware-formation point is more consistent with the standard NPE-shelved-entity pattern, but I could not verify the state of formation directly from the complaint or the Certificate of Interested Parties.

Recommended primary sources to pull next (paywalled): the PACER docket for D. Idaho 1:26-cv-00420 (for the current, definitive appearance list and any withdrawal/substitution of counsel) and the W.D. Tex. full docket sheet for 1:25-cv-01036 (for the complete Texas-era appearance history and the transfer order text).

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the defendant's counsel. Note upfront: the prior section contains an internal contradiction (it says the case was "not yet filed" as of May 2026 despite a 2025 filing date and a 1:25-cv- docket number), which I'll flag and test against current sources.

Good — multiple sources confirm the case was filed June 30, 2025, and has since been transferred to the District of Idaho (1:26-cv-00420). Let me pin down Micron's counsel.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Micron Technology, Inc. (WDTX 1:25-cv-01036, now D. Idaho 1:26-cv-00420)

⚠️ Corrections to the previously generated sections

Before the counsel analysis, two flags — the prior sections are materially wrong and should be corrected:

  1. The case was filed, and it is well past the pleading stage. The prior "Key legal developments" section states that as of May 2026 the case "has not yet been filed" and is "in its pre-filing stage." That is contradicted by the docket and by every source I found. The June 30, 2025 filing date is real, and the docket shows: Dkt. 1 Complaint (6/30/2025), Dkt. 27 Answer (10/14/2025), Dkt. 32 sealed Motion to Transfer (10/31/2025; redacted at Dkt. 52), Dkt. 81 AMT's opposition, and a 2026 opinion resolving venue discovery. It is possible the prior section was generated on a date earlier than the metadata in this prompt contemplated; either way, it is now stale and internally inconsistent.
  2. The case is no longer in the Western District of Texas. It was transferred to the District of Idaho, Case No. 1:26-cv-00420, assigned to Senior Judge B. Lynn Winmill, where it is actively litigated (most recent activity: Dkt. 116, Sept. 2, 2026; a motion to stay is pending). The prompt's court/status metadata ("Texas Western District Court / Active") is out of date.
  3. Also unverified from my searches: the prior section's assertion that Judge Pitman referred the sealed motion to transfer to Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower. The venue rulings I located are signed opinions; I could not independently confirm the Hightower referral in the sources retrieved, so treat it as unconfirmed.

Defense counsel — Fish & Richardson P.C. (primary outside counsel)

Micron's defense is being handled by its longtime patent litigation counsel, Fish & Richardson P.C., with Holland & Hart LLP serving as Idaho local counsel after transfer.

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Michael J. McKeon Lead trial counsel / lead attorney of record Fish & Richardson P.C., 1000 Maine Ave. SW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20024 (mckeon@fr.com; DC Bar No. 459780) Micron's go-to patent trial lawyer; ranked Chambers (Global 2026, Asia-Pacific); former Fed. Cir. clerk to Judge Bryson; appears as "LEAD ATTORNEY" in Micron's PTAB filings.
Adam R. Shartzer Core defense team (appears as attorney to be noticed for Micron) Fish & Richardson P.C., 1000 Maine Ave. SW, Washington, DC Long-standing Micron defense counsel; appeared for Micron in Sonrai Memory v. Micron-era N.D. Cal. / WDTX matters.
Brian J. Livedalen Defense team Fish & Richardson P.C., 1000 Maine Ave. SW, Washington, DC Listed among Micron's counsel in the transferor/transferee dockets.
Timothy W. Riffe Defense team (post-transfer appearances) Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC (riffe@fr.com) Veteran Micron IPR/post-grant and district court counsel; appeared at the Aug. 26, 2026 Idaho status conference.
Karolina I. Jesien Defense team Fish & Richardson P.C. (office location not confirmed in the sources I retrieved) Listed as Micron's counsel on the Idaho docket.
David M. Hoffman Defense team Fish & Richardson P.C. (office not confirmed) Listed as counsel for Micron on the Idaho docket.
Teague Ian Donahey Local counsel (Idaho), post-transfer Holland & Hart LLP, Boise, Idaho Micron's regular Idaho local counsel — e.g., Bell Semiconductor v. Micron (D. Idaho 1:22-cv-00192), Micron v. Netlist (D. Idaho 1:24-cv-00081), Micron v. Polaris PowerLED (D. Idaho 1:25-cv-00073). Appeared at the 8/26/2026 status conference.
Christopher McCurdy Appeared for Defendant at the Aug. 26, 2026 Idaho status conference Affiliation not confirmed — the minute entry lists him alongside Fish/Holland & Hart counsel; he may be Micron in-house or additional outside counsel Flagging explicitly rather than guessing.

Caveats / unverified items:

  • I could not retrieve the specific WDTX appearance docket entries for each defense attorney (the justia/dockets.justia WDTX docket extract I found was refreshed only as of the initial June 30, 2025 filings). The defense roster above is drawn from the Idaho transferee docket, the transfer briefing, and PTAB records, where the same Fish & Richardson team appears.
  • Portions of the venue record are under seal — Micron's motion to transfer was filed sealed (Dkt. 32), with only a redacted version at Dkt. 52, and sealed exhibits containing employee headcounts by location. Sealed filings may contain additional counsel or in-house participation not visible.
  • No dedicated in-house Micron attorney was identified by name in any accessible filing; Micron's appearance in this docket appears to run through outside counsel.

Cross-check: plaintiff's side (for completeness)

The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section was left blank. The docket shows AMT is represented by Justin A. Nelson and Ian M. Gore (Susman Godfrey L.L.P.), Andrew J. Nassar, and Patrick Bageant — the same team that appeared at the August 2026 Idaho status conference. That section should be updated, since it is no longer accurate to say no counsel had appeared.

Sources