IPValue Management, Inc. et al. v. Western Digital Corporation et al.

IPValue Management, Inc. and its affiliate Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against data storage giants Western Digital Corporation and SanDisk Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. IPValue operates as an intellectual property and patent monetization advisory firm, while Longitude Flash Memory Solutions (LFMS) functions as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), specializing in acquiring and licensing extensive patent portfolios, often sourced from major semiconductor companies like Cypress Semiconductor. Conversely, Western Digital is a prominent operating company in the data storage industry, known for its hard disk drives (HDDs) and, until its spin-off in February 2025, flash-based solid-state drives (SSDs). SanDisk, which recently became a separately traded public company focused on NAND flash memory products, was included as a defendant, reflecting its role in flash memory technology.

The litigation, filed on January 22, 2025 (Case No. 8:25-cv-00119), asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240, titled "Non-volatile memory device and method of operating the same." This patent generally describes a non-volatile memory device featuring a cell array with multiple memory blocks, each containing several erase units. The device's control logic is configured to perform erase operations on selected units while inhibiting them on unselected ones. The plaintiffs alleged that a wide array of Western Digital and SanDisk products, including embedded flash, HDDs, SSDs, USB flash drives, and memory cards utilizing 3D NAND flash memory, infringed this and reportedly other patents within the Longitude portfolio.

The case was filed in the Central District of California, a significant venue for patent litigation nationally, known for its experienced judges and willingness to efficiently adjudicate dispositive motions. While the specific assigned judge is not immediately available from public search without detailed docket access, many patent cases in this district are handled by judges participating in a Patent Pilot Program. The lawsuit is notable as it represents a typical NPE assertion pattern against major operating companies in the critical and rapidly evolving flash memory sector, a technology increasingly vital for artificial intelligence (AI) workloads and data centers. The dispute ultimately concluded with a stipulation of dismissal in January 2026, stemming from a broader license agreement between the parties that resolved all outstanding patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPValue Management, Inc. et al. v. Western Digital Corporation et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, case number 8:25-cv-00119, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd. against Western Digital Corporation and SanDisk Corporation. The case, which asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240 among others, was ultimately resolved through a comprehensive license agreement and subsequent dismissals in early 2026.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

2025

• 2025-01-22 – Complaint Filed: IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd. initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against Western Digital Corporation and SanDisk Corporation in the Central District of California. The complaint accused the defendants of infringing five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240, related to 3D NAND flash memory devices.
• 2025-03-07 – Related Declaratory Judgment Action Filed: SanDisk Corporation (which was then a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Digital, though it spun off in February 2025) filed a separate declaratory judgment action (5:25-cv-02389) against IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. SanDisk sought a declaration of non-infringement for the same five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240, that were asserted in the Central District of California case (8:25-cv-00119).
• 2025-05-XX – Motion to Stay Granted, Motion to Dismiss Denied: Western Digital and SanDisk filed motions to dismiss and to stay the proceedings in the Central District of California case (8:25-cv-00119). The court granted the motion to stay the case and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice. This decision was influenced by the existence of the parallel declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California, which the Central District court considered a more convenient venue for the dispute. The exact date of the order granting the stay is not explicitly provided in the snippets, but it occurred after the complaint and before the end of the year, as subsequent PTAB filings refer to it.
• 2025-09-02 – PTAB IPR Petitions Filed: SanDisk Technologies, Inc., among others, filed multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against patents asserted by Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd., including IPR2025-01281. While IPR2025-01281 specifically challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 (one of the five patents in the litigation), IPR2025-01283 was also filed and addressed U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240. These IPR filings indicate a strategy by the defendants to challenge the validity of the asserted patents at the USPTO.
• 2025-10-07 – Motion to Dismiss Denied in DJ Action: In the parallel Northern District of California declaratory judgment action (5:25-cv-02389), a motion to dismiss filed by IPValue and Longitude was denied.

2026

• 2026-01-20 – Stipulation of Dismissal Filed for District Court Cases: A stipulation of dismissal was filed in the Central District of California case (8:25-cv-00119) as an exhibit in IPR2025-01281. On the same date, a stipulation of dismissal was also filed in the related Northern District of California declaratory judgment action (5:25-cv-02389).
• 2026-01-21 – Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed: A Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 25-1584) involving Western Digital Technologies, Inc., SanDisk Technologies, Inc. (as appellants), and Longitude Licensing Ltd. (as appellee) was dismissed by joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). This appeal originated from a PTAB proceeding (IPR2023-01230) related to U.S. Patent No. 9,207,701B2 (a different patent but involving the same parties). This dismissal was part of a broader settlement between the companies.
• 2026-01-XX – Broader License Agreement Announced: The dismissals in January 2026 were part of a comprehensive license agreement that resolved all outstanding patent disputes between the companies.
• 2026-02-19 – PTAB IPR Terminated: IPR2025-01281 was terminated as "Terminated-Settled" due to a "Pre-DI settlement" (Pre-Director Institution settlement). A joint motion to dismiss and terminate the IPR had been filed on January 20, 2026. While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, it is highly probable that IPR2025-01283, which challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240, was also terminated due to the same overarching settlement.

Outcome:

The patent infringement litigation (8:25-cv-00119) and associated parallel proceedings (including the Northern District of California declaratory judgment action and IPRs at the PTAB) were settled and dismissed in January and February 2026. This comprehensive resolution, driven by a broader license agreement between IPValue/Longitude and Western Digital/SanDisk, avoided further litigation on the merits, including claim construction and trial. The PTAB proceedings related to the asserted patents were likewise terminated due to the settlement.

In the patent infringement case IPValue Management, Inc. et al. v. Western Digital Corporation et al. (8:25-cv-00119), the following attorneys are listed as counsel of record for the plaintiffs, IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd.:

• Neil A. Rubin

  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this specific case, but generally a lead counsel.
  • Note: Further search would be needed to identify his firm and relevant experience for this specific case context.

• Brian D. Ledahl

  • Role: Attorney added to party IPValue
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this specific case, but generally a lead counsel.
  • Note: Further search would be needed to identify his firm and relevant experience for this specific case context.

To provide firm details and specific experience, more in-depth web searches focusing on each attorney's professional profile are required, which are not fully detailed in the provided search results. The available snippets from docket monitoring services confirm their appearance but do not detail their roles (e.g., lead, local, in-house) or firms and experience directly.The plaintiff(s), IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd., are represented by the following counsel:

• Neil A. Rubin

  • Role: Partner, Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Mr. Rubin is a partner in the intellectual property and litigation departments, focusing on patent, trade secret, and other intellectual property litigation. He has litigated cases in district courts, the International Trade Commission, and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He holds physics degrees and has helped clients recover over $1.7 billion in judgments and settlements. He was selected for inclusion in Los Angeles Magazine's Southern California "Super Lawyers" from 2022-2025.

• Brian D. Ledahl

  • Role: Partner, Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Mr. Ledahl is a partner specializing in intellectual property and litigation, with an emphasis on high-technology patent litigation. He has extensive experience litigating complex claims in federal and state courts, and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has also successfully represented clients in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. He has helped clients recover over $1.5 billion in judgments and settlements. Mr. Ledahl has been honored as a Southern California Super Lawyer from 2014-2026. He was part of the trial teams that won significant jury verdicts, including a $279 million verdict against Samsung and a $175 million verdict against Verizon, related to wireless technology patents.

Counsel of Record for Western Digital Corporation and SanDisk Corporation

In the settled patent infringement case IPValue Management, Inc. et al. v. Western Digital Corporation et al. (8:25-cv-00119, C.D. Cal.), Western Digital and SanDisk were represented by attorneys from Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

While specific appearance details for each attorney on the docket were not directly accessible via public web search, Munger, Tolles & Olson is a prominent firm frequently representing technology companies in high-stakes intellectual property disputes, including patent litigation. The firm's expertise aligns with the nature of the defense required in a case against a patent monetization entity like IPValue Management. Western Digital has also utilized other firms, such as Haynes & Boone, LLP, in related patent litigation against Longitude Licensing, Ltd. (a plaintiff entity also involved in the broader settlement). However, for this specific case, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP appears to be the primary counsel for the defendants.

Based on general information about Munger, Tolles & Olson's Intellectual Property practice and common litigation structures, the following types of roles and relevant experience are typical for attorneys involved in such cases:

• Gregory P. Stone
  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Gregory Stone offers extensive experience defending companies across tech, consumer products, and manufacturing sectors in various patent disputes. He is noted for providing practical legal guidance in complex IP matters.
• L. Ashley Aull
  • Role: Likely partner or senior associate.
  • Firm: Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Ashley Aull is a key contact for Munger Tolles & Olson's patent practice, which handles complex patent cases in industries like tech, life sciences, and semiconductors.
• Andrew Radsch
  • Role: Likely partner or senior associate.
  • Firm: Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Andrew Radsch is also a key contact for the firm's patent practice, involved in guiding clients through high-stakes patent disputes.

Munger, Tolles & Olson is recognized for its substantial expertise in high-stakes IP disputes, representing leading technology and media and entertainment companies. Their patent litigation team is known for its technical depth and trial-tested strategy, handling complex issues such as standard-essential patents, allegations of anticompetitive conduct, and cross-border disputes. The firm has a strong reputation for achieving "remarkable outcomes" in high-stakes litigation.

While additional local counsel or in-house counsel from Western Digital or SanDisk may have been involved, the primary external representation for the defendants in significant patent litigation often comes from firms like Munger, Tolles & Olson. Specific details on local counsel or in-house counsel for this particular case were not publicly detailed in the available web search results.