Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc.

This patent infringement litigation involves Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC (AMT) as the plaintiff and SK Hynix Inc. as the defendant. Advanced Memory Technologies is widely understood to be a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), often referred to as a "patent troll," which focuses on asserting and enforcing patent rights through litigation rather than manufacturing or commercializing products. Conversely, SK Hynix Inc. is a leading global semiconductor company from South Korea, specializing in the research, development, and manufacture of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) chips and NAND flash memory chips, essential components for various electronic devices.

The lawsuit alleges that SK Hynix's semiconductor memory modules, specifically its NAND flash memory and DRAM modules, infringe upon AMT's patents. These accused products are critical components found in a wide array of consumer electronics, including smartphones, servers, computers, tablets, gaming consoles like the Xbox Series X/S, Internet of Things (IoT) devices, and automotive applications. While the initial complaint filed on December 30, 2024, accused infringement of four patents related to booster circuits and flash memory modules, an amended complaint on April 2, 2025, added U.S. Patent No. 8,400,835 to the asserted portfolio. U.S. Patent No. 8,400,835, titled "Internal voltage generating circuit and semiconductor memory device including the same," generally describes an internal voltage generating circuit and a semiconductor memory device incorporating it, designed to provide a stable internal voltage for memory operation.

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, with District Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne referring. This venue is particularly notable for patent litigation due to its reputation for being plaintiff-friendly, offering efficient case management, and having judges experienced in handling complex patent disputes. The litigation is significant due to AMT, an NPE, targeting SK Hynix, a major player in the global semiconductor industry, particularly as SK Hynix derives substantial revenue (over $12 billion in the first half of 2024) from the U.S. market. The complaint also implicitly involves major SK Hynix customers such as Dell, Microsoft, and NVIDIA, whose products integrate the allegedly infringing memory modules, underscoring the broad market implications. Furthermore, SK Hynix has sought to challenge some of AMT's asserted patents through inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), but several of these challenges have been rejected without full review, potentially strengthening AMT's position in the ongoing district court litigation.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments for Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01078, focusing on U.S. Patent No. 8,400,835:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• The initial complaint was filed by Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC (AMT) against SK Hynix Inc. on December 30, 2024.
• An amended complaint was filed on April 2, 2025, which added U.S. Patent No. 8,400,835 to the list of patents allegedly infringed.
• SK Hynix filed its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on March 11, 2025. In these contentions, SK Hynix indicated that it was currently unable to fully discern AMT's position regarding the construction of claim terms and reserved the right to modify its contentions after claim construction.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• No specific rulings on motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR have been identified at this time. However, the filing of an IPR (see below) suggests a motion to stay could be a future development.

Claim Construction (Markman):

• While no Markman hearing outcome has been reported yet, SK Hynix's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, dated March 11, 2025, indicate that claim construction is an anticipated stage. SK Hynix noted its inability to fully discern AMT's claim construction positions and reserved the right to update its contentions accordingly.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• As of March 11, 2025, discovery was ongoing. SK Hynix stated its intent to seek discovery, including subpoenas, from third parties such as Micron Technologies, Inc. and Seiko Instruments Inc., regarding prior art relevant to the asserted patents.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• SK Hynix Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01451, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,400,835. The Preliminary Invalidity Contentions filed in the district court on March 11, 2025, explicitly reference this IPR proceeding. The effect of this IPR on the litigation is pending the PTAB's decision on institution and subsequent final written decision.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• A trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on October 5, 2026. Given this future date, no trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred yet.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active and pending, with a trial scheduled for October 2026. Therefore, there has been no final disposition, such as settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC is represented by attorneys from Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Miller Fair Henry PLLC in its patent infringement case against SK Hynix Inc.. Justin Adatto Nelson of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. has been identified as a lead attorney for Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff, Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC, includes the following attorneys:

1. Justin Adatto Nelson

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
• Office Location: Houston, Texas
• Relevant Experience: Justin Nelson is a partner at Susman Godfrey and has represented companies in high-profile cases, including Dominion Voting Systems' $787.5 million settlement with Fox News in April 2023.

2. Ian M. Gore

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
• Office Location: (Likely Houston, given firm's presence and other attorneys, but not explicitly stated in snippets).
• Relevant Experience: His specific patent litigation experience in this context is not detailed in the provided search results.

3. Bianca Rey

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
• Office Location: (Likely Houston, given firm's presence and other attorneys, but not explicitly stated in snippets).
• Relevant Experience: Her specific patent litigation experience in this context is not detailed in the provided search results.

4. Kalpana Srinivasan

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
• Office Location: Los Angeles, California
• Relevant Experience: Her specific patent litigation experience in this context is not detailed in the provided search results.

5. Andrew Jamal Nassar

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
• Office Location: (Likely Houston, given firm's presence and other attorneys, but not explicitly stated in snippets).
• Relevant Experience: His specific patent litigation experience in this context is not detailed in the provided search results.

6. Ravi Paul Singh Bhalla

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
• Office Location: (Likely Houston, given firm's presence and other attorneys, but not explicitly stated in snippets).
• Relevant Experience: His specific patent litigation experience in this context is not detailed in the provided search results.

7. Andrea Leigh Fair

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
• Office Location: (Not explicitly stated in snippets, but likely Texas-based as local counsel for EDTX cases).
• Relevant Experience: Her specific patent litigation experience in this context is not detailed in the provided search results.

8. Claire Abernathy Henry

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
• Office Location: (Not explicitly stated in snippets, but likely Texas-based as local counsel for EDTX cases).
• Relevant Experience: Her specific patent litigation experience in this context is not detailed in the provided search results.

The following attorneys represent defendant SK Hynix Inc. in Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc. (2:24-cv-01078):

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This firm appears to be lead counsel for SK Hynix Inc. in this matter. Their attorneys listed include:

• Zhaoxin Yin (Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP - Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Known for intellectual property litigation, particularly in patent disputes.
• Andrew M. Holmes (Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP - San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Specializes in high-stakes intellectual property and technology litigation.
• Gyushik Jang (Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP - San Francisco, CA
  • Note: His email address kevinjang@quinnemanuel.com was listed in a filing, indicating his active involvement.
• Brian L. Saunders (Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Note: Focuses on patent and other complex commercial litigation.
• Sean S. Pak (Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP - San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Extensive experience in intellectual property and technology litigation.

The Dacus Firm, PC
This firm likely serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Deron R. Dacus (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C.
  • Note: Experienced patent litigator with a focus on cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

While some attorneys from Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (such as Justin Adatto Nelson, Ian M. Gore, Bianca Rey, Kalpana Srinivasan, Andrew Jamal Nassar, and Ravi Paul Singh Bhalla) and Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Andrea Leigh Fair and Claire Abernathy Henry) are also listed in the PacerMonitor record, a July 17, 2025 document specifically from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP addressed to Justin A. Nelson of Susman Godfrey LLP, indicates that Susman Godfrey LLP likely represents the plaintiff, Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC, as the letter provides notice regarding pre-suit damages from SK Hynix Inc. to "Dear Mr. Nelson". Therefore, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. attorneys are not included as counsel for the defendant, SK Hynix Inc. There is no information to indicate in-house counsel appearances at this time.