Untitled case

Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC ("AMT") has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Micron Technology, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, under case number 1:25-cv-01036. The plaintiff, Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company, and its name and litigation pattern suggest it may be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). The defendant, Micron Technology, Inc., is a well-known Delaware-organized corporation and a major operating company specializing in semiconductor memory and storage solutions.

The litigation centers on U.S. Patent No. 8,593,888, titled "Semiconductor memory device." This patent broadly covers semiconductor memory devices, specifically nonvolatile memory such as electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM). The technology described includes a memory cell array, row and column decoders, a write/read circuit, and a power supply circuit, all designed to enable the erasure and rewriting of memory cell contents using electrical signals. The complaint alleges that Micron is infringing this patent, likely through its memory products.

The case is currently active and assigned to Judge Robert Pitman in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. This venue, particularly the Western District of Texas, became a highly popular forum for patent litigation due to the policies and practices of Judge Alan Albright in the Waco Division, who actively sought to attract patent cases with fast-track schedules. However, in July 2022, the chief judge of the Western District of Texas implemented randomized judge assignment for patent cases filed in the Waco Division, making it less certain that plaintiffs would draw Judge Albright. The filing of this case in the Austin Division, assigned to Judge Pitman, is notable as it deviates from the previous trend of plaintiffs strategically filing in Waco to ensure assignment to Judge Albright.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (1:25-cv-01036, W.D. Tex.)

This patent infringement litigation, centered on US Patent 8593888, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case remains active as of May 25, 2026.

Chronological Summary of Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025)

• Complaint Filed (2025-06-30): Plaintiff Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC ("AMT") filed a complaint for patent infringement against Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, initiating case number 1:25-cv-01036.

• Answer and Counterclaims: Specific details regarding Micron's answer and any asserted counterclaims in this particular case (1:25-cv-01036) are not publicly available from the searches conducted. However, in related litigation, patent owners often respond to infringement allegations with invalidity contentions.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2025)

• IPR Petition Filed (2025-08-21): SK hynix Inc. (a different entity than the defendant Micron in this WDTX case, but potentially a parallel litigant against AMT) filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01449, against Advanced Memory Technologies LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,593,888.

• Patent Owner's Discretionary Denial Brief (2025-10-28): Advanced Memory Technologies LLC, as the Patent Owner in the IPR, filed a discretionary denial brief arguing against institution of the IPR. This brief referenced a related district court case in the Eastern District of Texas (2:24-cv-01078, Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc.), noting that trial was scheduled for October 5, 2026, and a final written decision in the IPR would likely not issue until around March 2027, approximately five months after the scheduled district court trial date.

• Denial of Motion to Stay in Related EDTX Case (2025-09-03): In the related Eastern District of Texas case (2:24-cv-01078), a motion to stay pending IPR was denied on September 3, 2025. The court indicated it was "universal practice" not to consider such motions before IPR institution. While this pertains to a different district court case, it provides insight into the judicial approach to stays pending IPRs in parallel proceedings involving Advanced Memory Technologies' patents.

• IPR Institution Decision (2025-12-17): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a discretionary denial of the IPR2025-01449 petition on December 17, 2025. This means the PTAB chose not to institute the IPR, which generally removes a potential avenue for staying the district court litigation based on this specific IPR challenge.

3. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance, Claim Construction, and Discovery (2025-2026)

• No specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment for the WDTX case (1:25-cv-01036) were found in the public search results. Similarly, details about claim construction (Markman) outcomes or specific discovery milestones for this particular case are not yet publicly available in the search results. Given the case filing date in mid-2025, it is likely in the earlier stages of discovery and potentially moving towards claim construction.

4. Trial Events & Outcome (2026)

• Current Posture: The case 1:25-cv-01036 remains active in the Western District of Texas. No trial has occurred, and therefore no verdict or post-trial motions have been filed. No specific trial date for this WDTX case has been identified in the public record, although a related case in the EDTX has a trial scheduled for October 5, 2026.

5. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• As the case is active, there has been no final disposition via settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC ("AMT"), the plaintiff in Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (1:25-cv-01036, W.D. Tex.), is represented by a team of attorneys from Susman Godfrey LLP. The following counsel have been identified as representing the plaintiff in this case:

• Justin A. Nelson

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, Texas
  • Experience Note: Known for representing companies in high-profile cases, including the Dominion Voting Systems' US$787.5 million settlement with Fox News, and has a portfolio of IP enforcement successes.

• Kalpana Srinivasan

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, California
  • Experience Note: Served as lead counsel for Huawei in its patent dispute against Netgear.

• Ian M. Gore

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (office location not specified in publicly available snippets, but the firm has a strong presence in Texas)
  • Experience Note: Part of the "join counsel" team representing AMT in related patent litigation.

• Bianca Rey

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (office location not specified in publicly available snippets)
  • Experience Note: Also listed as "join counsel" for AMT in related patent litigation.

• Kemper P. Diehl

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey, LLP (office location not specified in publicly available snippets)
  • Experience Note: Member of the counsel team for AMT in parallel patent infringement cases.

• Ravi Paul Singh Bhalla (also appears as Ravi Bhalla)

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (office location not specified in publicly available snippets)
  • Experience Note: Part of the Susman Godfrey legal team representing AMT.

• Andrew Jamal Nassar

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (office location not specified in publicly available snippets)
  • Experience Note: Member of the Susman Godfrey legal team representing AMT.

• Stuart Eric Pollack (also appears as Stuart E. Pollack)

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (office location not specified in publicly available snippets)
  • Experience Note: Member of the Susman Godfrey legal team representing AMT.

It's important to note that while some attorneys' office locations are derived from filings in related cases or general firm information, specific office locations for all listed attorneys in the context of this particular WDTX case were not explicitly stated in the public search results, nor were their precise roles (e.g., lead, local, of counsel) beyond what could be reasonably inferred for Justin Nelson.

The defendant in case 1:25-cv-01036, filed in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, is Micron Technology, Inc..

As of the current date, May 25, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing Micron Technology, Inc. in this case has not been explicitly identified in the provided search results. Therefore, a detailed list of attorneys, their roles, firms, and experience cannot be provided at this time. Further access to the case's PACER docket would be required to identify the appearing counsel for the defendant.