Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.

Case Overview and Background: Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc. (IPR2022-00744)

Parties. The petitioner, Micron Technology, Inc. (with subsidiaries Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. and Micron Technology Texas, LLC), is one of the world's largest semiconductor memory manufacturers — a large operating company that designs and sells DRAM, NAND, and memory modules (including registered and load-reduced DIMMs for servers) from its base in Boise, Idaho. The patent owner, Netlist, Inc. (OTCQB: NLST), is a small Irvine, California-based memory-subsystem designer and manufacturer (founded 2000; CEO C.K. Hong) that sells high-performance DIMMs, NVDIMMs, and DDR5 modules for AI/data-center applications. Netlist is not a classic non-practicing entity — it has real product revenue — but its roughly 200-patent portfolio covering server-memory, rank-multiplication, load-reduction, HBM, and DDR5 technologies has become central to its business model through aggressive licensing and enforcement against Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron (SEC filings; Netlist press releases).

Patent, accused technology, and procedural posture. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,489,314 ("Memory module with data buffering," issued Nov. 26, 2019), which is directed to a memory module (of the RDIMM/LRDIMM type) in which logic registers address/control signals — including chip-select signals — for memory devices arranged in N-bit-wide ranks, with data-buffer circuitry controlling transfers so the module communicates with the memory controller at a "specified data rate" equal to the internal rate between the logic and the ranks, and so the module's overall CAS latency exceeds the actual CAS latency of the DRAM devices (CAFC op., Feb. 20, 2026; IPWatchdog, Feb. 23, 2026). In the parallel district-court litigation, Netlist accused Micron's DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM server memory modules (e.g., the 64GB DDR4 LRDIMM MTA72ASS8G72LZ-2G9) of infringing the '314 patent and related patents ('608, '035); Netlist filed that infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on April 28, 2021, and the WDTX action — in which the '314 and '608 patents are asserted — is currently stayed (Netlist 10-K/10-Q; Netlist press release, Feb. 23, 2026). I could not verify from available sources the specific WDTX docket number or presiding judge for the primary 2021 action; a related WDTX docket (1:22-cv-00134-LY) reflects stay practice before Judge Lee Yeakel, but that should not be conflated with the 2021 case without PACER confirmation. The procedural posture addressed here is the IPR itself: Micron petitioned on March 30, 2022 (challenging claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 12–14 as obvious over the Halbert prior-art application, US 2002/0112118 A1, and JEDEC standards; a companion IPR2022-00745 challenged claim 15 and related claims), the Board instituted on November 1, 2022, and on October 30, 2023, a panel led by APJ Nabeel U. Khan issued a Final Written Decision finding that Micron failed to prove any challenged claim unpatentable. The PTAB construed "specified data rate" to require the module-to-controller rate to equal the logic-to-rank rate and found Halbert disclosed ranks running at half the module's rate; Micron appealed to the Federal Circuit (Nos. 2024-1312/2024-1313), which affirmed on February 20, 2026, in a nonprecedential opinion by Judges Dyk, Prost, and Reyna (Reyna, J.), rejecting Micron's "ratio" reading of "data rate" and its motivation-to-combine arguments.

Why the case is notable. This IPR is a front in Netlist's broader, high-stakes war against the memory oligopoly over the server-memory and AI-memory standards: Netlist has disclosed more than 60 of its patents to JEDEC as potentially standard-essential with RAND licensing assurances and pressed RAND license offers on Micron, injecting standards/FRAND issues into the dispute (Netlist letter to Micron, Apr. 28, 2021, filed in WDTX). The outcome is significant because the PTAB's FWD — now affirmed by the CAFC — is the third time in roughly twelve months the Federal Circuit has upheld Netlist patent validity against Micron/Samsung challenges (alongside the '608 and '523 patents), while Netlist has simultaneously collected jury verdicts totaling approximately $866 million against Samsung and Micron (Samsung $303M in 2023 and $118M in 2024; Micron $445M in May 2024 for the '912/'417 patents) and has escalated to ITC exclusion proceedings targeting Micron and Samsung HBM and DDR5 imports in 2025–2026. The IPR's failure to invalidate the '314 claims removes Micron's primary invalidity lever in the stayed WDTX case and bolsters Netlist's damages and licensing leverage just as AI-driven demand makes HBM and DDR5 server memory among the semiconductor industry's highest-value product categories — a market context that explains why a company of Netlist's size has managed to extract nine-figure exposure from the largest DRAM makers.

Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. — W.D. Tex. Litigation and Parallel PTAB IPRs

Scope note: The case in your metadata (IPR2022-00744) is the PTAB inter partes review of Netlist's U.S. Patent No. 10,489,314 ("the '314 patent"), not the infringement suit itself. The underlying patent-infringement litigation is Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC, originally filed in the W.D. Tex. Waco Division (No. 6:21-cv-00431-ADA, with companion No. 6:21-cv-00430-ADA) and later transferred to the W.D. Tex. Austin Division as Nos. 1:22-cv-00134-LY and 1:22-cv-00136-LY. The '314 and '608 patents were asserted in the 1:22-cv-00136 action; the '833 and '035 patents were in the companion case. What follows is the infringement litigation in chronological order, with the parallel IPRs integrated as they affected the case.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2021-04-28 — Netlist filed two patent-infringement complaints in the W.D. Tex. Waco Division before Judge Alan D. Albright (Nos. 6:21-cv-00430-ADA, 6:21-cv-00431-ADA), asserting four patents — '833 (8,301,833), '314 (10,489,314), '035 (9,824,035), and '608 (10,268,608) — against Micron's DDR4 LRDIMM products. Netlist alleged the patents were essential to JEDEC DDR4 standards and that it had made RAND licensing assurances. Jury demanded. (Justia docket, 6:21-cv-00431, filed 2021-04-28; Netlist complaint, Ex. 1035, DocketAlarm; Micron's stay motion, No. 1:22-cv-00136, Dkt. 59 at 5, CourtListener.)
• 2021-06-15/17 — Complaints served; answers due 2021-07-06 (Dkts. 15–17).
• Mid-2021 — Micron answered with counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of all four patents and a declaratory judgment setting RAND license terms for the asserted patents (referenced in Micron's later filings as "Netlist Case 1, Dkt. No. 19"; see Micron's stay motion in E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00203, Dkt. 28, CourtListener/RECAP).
• 2021-09-10 — Netlist answered Micron's counterclaims (Dkt. 28, 6:21-cv-00431), admitting a justiciable controversy, denying infringement/invalidity, and asserting affirmative defenses including license/RAND, waiver/estoppel, and bad-faith "patent holdout" by Micron (CourtListener; RECAP PDF of Dkt. 28).
• 2021-09-10 / 2021-11-05 — The parties exchanged Preliminary Infringement Contentions (Netlist asserting '314 claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–10, 12–20, 22–33; '035 claims 1–2, 6, 12–13, 21; '608 claims 1, 5) and Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (Micron, Dkt. 26, 2021-11-05; see Ex. 2007 in IPR2022-00237).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2021-11-24 — Micron moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the Waco cases to the District of Idaho (Boise), arguing the center of gravity (witnesses, documents) was Idaho (Dkt. 32, CourtListener). Netlist conducted venue discovery (notice filed 2021-11-30).
• Early 2022 — The transfer was resolved by stipulation: the cases moved from Waco to the Austin Division, where they were renumbered 1:22-cv-00134-LY and 1:22-cv-00136-LY before Judge Lee Yeakel ("Order Transferring Cases to the Austin Division," PTACTS Ex. 1036; described in Micron's E.D. Tex. filings, No. 2:22-cv-00203, Dkt. 28).
• 2021-12-23 through 2022-03-30 — Micron filed five IPR petitions challenging every asserted claim: IPR2022-00236 and IPR2022-00237 (filed 2021-12-23, against the '035 and '608 patents), IPR2022-00418 (filed 2022-01-14, against the '833 patent), and IPR2022-00744 and IPR2022-00745 (filed 2022-03-30, against the '314 patent). (Micron's stay motion, Dkt. 59.)
• 2022-04-01 — Micron moved to stay the litigation pending the five IPRs and all appeals (Dkt. 59), invoking the Crossroads factors; Netlist opposed (Dkt. 66, filed 2022-04-19), noting the Markman hearing was set for May 12, 2022 and that Micron had delayed its '314 petitions until the eve of that hearing (RECAP PDF, Dkt. 66).
• 2022-05-11 — Judge Yeakel granted the stay through the final written decisions in IPR2022-00236, -00237, -00418, -00744, and -00745 "and all subsequent appeals of said written decisions" (Dkt. 69 and proposed order at Dkt. 59-1, CourtListener). The scheduled Markman hearing never occurred.
• 2022-09-02 — Micron moved to temporarily lift the stay solely to add amended counterclaims (including DJ counterclaims on patents Netlist later asserted in the E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 72); Netlist countered with a protective-order motion (Dkt. 73).
• 2022-10-05 — Court denied the motion to lift the stay and dismissed the protective-order motion (Dkt. 79).
• 2023-05-04 — Case reassigned from Judge Yeakel to another Austin Division judge (order signed by Judge Robert Pitman; docket designation "DII") (Dkt. 81, CourtListener).
• 2023-10-18 (approx.) — Netlist filed an opposed motion to lift the stay and transfer the case to the E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division) (Dkt. 92), arguing transfer would consolidate related Netlist–Micron litigations and that the '314 patent would expire in 2025.
• 2024-06-17 — Court denied the motion to lift the stay and to transfer (Dkt. 95). The court reasoned that the pending '608 IPR and the '314 IPR appeal could simplify the case; that Netlist had not sought injunctive relief and had delayed filing suit; that the case was still in its early stages (no fact discovery, no scheduling order); and that transfer would breach the parties' stipulation to litigate in Austin (Justia, Document 95).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• No district-court Markman order was ever entered. The parties had substantially completed claim-construction briefing in Waco/Austin — preliminary constructions (2021-12-23), extrinsic-evidence disclosures (2022-01-13), Micron's opening brief and expert declarations (2022-02-03), and a joint claim-construction chart (2022-04-14, Dkt. 66-1) — with a hearing set for 2022-05-12, but the stay was granted on 2022-05-11, freezing the case.
• Claim construction instead occurred in the PTAB proceedings: in IPR2022-00744 the Board construed "specified data rate" (data transmitted between the memory module and controller at the same rate as between the logic circuit and ranks), a construction the Federal Circuit upheld on appeal (see § 6 below).

4. Discovery milestones (strategic)

• 2021-11 to 2022-01 — Venue discovery on Micron's Idaho transfer motion; agreed protective order entered (Dkt. 39, 2022-01-21).
• 2021-09 to 2021-11 — Infringement and invalidity contentions exchanged, defining the asserted claims (including '314 claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–10, 12–20, 22–33).
• 2022-01 to 2022-04 — Claim-construction discovery, including expert declarations (Dr. Harold S. Stone and Dr. Alan Jay Smith for Micron, Feb. 2022) and briefing.
• After 2022-05-11 — Fact discovery never commenced; the stay froze the case. Subsequent docket activity was limited to status reports (2022-06-13, 2022-10-18) and the stay-lift motions described above. The parties' only later "discovery"-adjacent dispute was Micron's 2022 attempt to add counterclaims, denied with the stay-lift motion (2022-10-05).

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• None. The case has been stayed since 2022-05-11; there has been no trial, verdict, judgment, or post-trial motion (no JMOL/new-trial/fee issues). Because the '314 patent expired in 2025, any eventual remedy is limited to damages (Netlist's transfer briefing so argued; Dkt. 95 opinion).

6. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and their effect on the litigation

The stay was premised on Micron's five IPRs covering all asserted claims:

• '035 patent — IPR2022-00236 (filed 2021-12-23): instituted; oral argument 2023-04-19; final written decision holding the challenged claims (2 and 6) patentable. Micron did not appeal. (Netlist Form 10-Q, 2024-03-30, SEC EDGAR; Netlist press release, 2026-02-23.)
• '608 patent — IPR2022-00237 (filed 2021-12-23): institution denied; rehearing denied — the '608 patent survived Micron's direct challenge. (Netlist 10-Q.) Separately, Samsung later challenged the '608 patent (IPR2023-00847); the PTAB upheld validity and the CAFC affirmed in 2025. (Netlist press release, 2026-02-23.)
• '833 patent — IPR2022-00418 (filed 2022-01-14): instituted; final written decision 2023-08-28 holding all challenged claims unpatentable — eliminating the '833 patent from the litigation (Netlist 10-Q). This later spawned collateral litigation: Micron sued Netlist in Idaho state court (2023-12-11) alleging bad-faith assertion of the now-invalidated '833 patent (Netlist 10-K, 2024-02-23).
• '314 patent — IPR2022-00744 (claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–10, 12–14; filed 2022-03-30): institution granted 2022-11-01 on all grounds (obviousness over Halbert + JEDEC standards, 35 U.S.C. § 103); final written decision 2023-10-30 — no challenged claim shown unpatentable, based on the "specified data rate" construction and the Board's finding that Halbert's ranks ran at half the module data rate (PTAB Institution Decision, Banner Witcoff PDF; Patexia; Netlist 10-Q).
• '314 patent — IPR2022-00745 (claims 15, 28 and dependents; filed 2022-03-30): final written decision 2023-10-30 — no challenged claim shown unpatentable, for lack of motivation to combine Halbert's Figure 2 chip-select scheme with Figure 4's concurrent-rank module (CAFC opinion; IPWatchdog, 2026-02-23).
• 2023-12-29 — Micron appealed both '314 IPR decisions to the Federal Circuit (Nos. 2024-1312, 2024-1313) (Netlist 10-Q).
• 2026-02-20 — Federal Circuit affirmed both final written decisions in a nonprecedential opinion (Reyna, J., joined by Dyk and Prost). The court (1) upheld the Board's construction of "specified data rate," rejecting Micron's "ratio" reading as irreconcilable with claim 1's plain language; (2) upheld the motivation-to-combine analysis for Halbert Figures 2 and 4, noting the combination would undermine Figure 4's throughput objective; and (3) found any error in construing the chip-select limitation (15.6) immaterial because Halbert undisputedly sent active chip-select signals to a multiplexer rather than to the ranks (CAFC slip op. 24-1312, 24-1313; IPWatchdog; Vital Law, 2026-02-23).

Effect on the litigation: The IPR outcomes bifurcated the WDTX case — the '833 claims were cancelled (FWD 2023-08-28), while the '035 (claims 2, 6), '608, and '314 claims survived. The stay, which runs through "all subsequent appeals" of the IPR decisions, has kept the entire case frozen; Netlist's repeated efforts to lift the stay (2022-10-05 denial; 2024-06-17 denial) failed. Per Netlist's 2026-02-23 announcement, the WDTX case (asserting '314 and '608) "is currently stayed."

7. Final disposition / present posture

• No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been entered. The IPR (IPR2022-00744) formally terminated with its final written decision on 2023-10-30; the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-02-20, and Micron had 90 days (to roughly late May 2026) to seek certiorari. As of the latest public reporting (2026-02-23), the WDTX infringement action remains stayed and active, with the '314 and '608 patents still asserted. No trial date has been set.

---

Caveats on sourcing: The precise IPR-number-to-patent mapping for IPR2022-00236/-00237 ('035 vs. '608) is drawn from Netlist's SEC disclosures and the parties' stay motion, which list the five IPRs collectively; I have not confirmed the individual pairing in the PTAB dockets. The identity of the Austin Division judge after the May 2023 reassignment is not reliably ascertainable from the available sources (docket text reads "Judge Docket II – Austin"); the June 2024 stay/transfer order (Dkt. 95) is available on Justia. The Federal Circuit opinion (2026-02-20) is nonprecedential and available at cafc.uscourts.gov (No. 24-1312, 24-1313).

I'll research the press coverage of this case, starting with the articles listed in the news index and then searching broader angles.

I found a critical distinction: the 2026-09-02 IPWatchdog article concerns a different patent (the '339 patent). Let me verify the other listed articles.

Let me verify the remaining listed articles and search for additional coverage of the '314 case specifically.

Press and analyst coverage of Micron v. Netlist (IPR2022-00744) and the surrounding '314 campaign

Direct coverage of the '314 IPR outcome. The most substantive piece specifically on this proceeding is IPWatchdog (Rose Esfandiari, Feb. 23, 2026), which reported that the Federal Circuit on Feb. 20, 2026 affirmed the PTAB's two final written decisions upholding Netlist's '314 patent in IPR2022-00744 and IPR2022-00745. It walks through the same three holdings reflected in the Federal Circuit's nonprecedential opinion (Dyk, Prost, Reyna, JJ.): rejection of Micron's "ratio" reading of "data rate" because it "cannot be squared with claim 1's plain language"; the motivation-to-combine ruling on Halbert's Figures 2 and 4 (combining them would defeat Figure 4's throughput goal); and the immaterial chip-select construction point. The ruling was distributed heavily as a Netlist press release — reproduced at EQS Newswire, GuruFocus and Business Insider/TipRanks — quoting CEO C.K. Hong that this is "the third time within the past 12 months that the CAFC has affirmed the validity of Netlist patents asserted against Micron and/or Samsung," and noting Micron had 90 days to seek certiorari. A syndicated Stocktwits-wire piece on Asianet Newsable added market color: it reported NLST closed 20% higher that Friday while MU rose ~2.5%, and tied the ruling to the "$445 million" Micron jury verdict. Netlist's own release and those wires consistently stressed the knock-on effect for the stayed W.D. Tex. case and for Netlist's six-patent ITC complaint. The IIPLA news desk framed the same decision from the defendant's side ("Federal Circuit Upholds Micron's PTAB Loss"), noting that Irell & Manella, Sterne Kessler and Winston & Strawn appeared and that Google, Samsung and Super Micro were monitoring; a Korean-language IP Daily analysis likewise read the affirmance as the third such ruling and predicted downstream impact on the Samsung/ITC proceedings.

Coverage of the wider Netlist–Micron memory war, where the '314 sits. Most of the recent volume concerns Netlist's separate ITC enforcement campaign rather than the '314 IPR. Crypto Briefing (Aug. 17, 2026) reported Netlist's ITC complaint (Aug. 12 per Crypto Briefing) against Micron, Super Micro, HPE and Lenovo over four patents — 10,025,731, 10,217,523, 12,373,366 and 12,675,407 — covering DDR5 RDIMM and MRDIMM modules, and highlighted that un-named Dell fell ~3% on supply-chain contagion. 24/7 Wall St. covered the same filing with more market detail (SMCI −4% to $38.40, DELL −3% to $473.91, HPE −0.7%, while Micron rose 4% to $1,012.51), and added a data point beyond the '314 record: that Netlist "separately filed a federal lawsuit against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California involving two of the asserted patents." That ITC complaint was formally instituted on Sept. 23, 2026 as Inv. No. 337-TA-1523, per the USITC's own news release, which named Micron, HPE, Lenovo and Super Micro as respondents; Yahoo Finance and IIPLA reported the institution and quoted Hong's line that "the Samsung agreement established an important industry benchmark for the value of our IP"; Benzinga tied the institution to a ~12.7% jump in NLST to $5.94; and International Trade Today specified that the complaint carries a bond request and that the accused products are Micron DDR5 DIMMs.

Where accounts diverge or overreach the '314 record. A significant attribution trap: the IPWatchdog piece of Sept. 2, 2026 headlined "Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Obviousness Finding Against Memory Module Patent" is not about this case — it covers Netlist v. Micron No. 24-1707 and the '339 patent (per the CAFC's 24-1707 opinion), where the PTAB invalidated Netlist's claims and Netlist lost its appeal — the mirror image of IPR2022-00744. Similarly, the Yahoo Finance and IIPLA Sept. 2026 stories assert that "Micron previously won a major legal decision… when the Federal Circuit upheld the invalidation of five Netlist patents challenged by the chipmaker" — a sweeping characterization that aggregates the separate '339/related rulings and does not match the '314 record, in which Micron lost. There is also a sourcing nuance in the Aug. 17 items: Crypto Briefing dates the ITC complaint to Aug. 12 while the USITC says Aug. 11. The Samsung benchmark figure ($421M) that the Sept. ITC stories cite for "2023 and 2024" verdicts is narrower than the ~$866M aggregate Netlist has publicized across 2023–2024 juries.

Coverage limits. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, EFF or JD Supra article devoted to IPR2022-00744 itself; dedicated press treatment of the '314 IPR runs essentially through IPWatchdog, Netlist's wire-distributed press release, and trade/aggregator write-ups, with the ITC and market pieces carrying most of the recent volume. I was unable to retrieve or verify the Biztoc item ("US ITC to probe Micron over Netlist patent claims," 2026-09-24) or the two Sept. 14, 2026 Micron share-price pieces (Ibtimes.com.au and Advfn) as discussing this patent litigation; the underlying ITC institution they track is, however, confirmed by the USITC release and the outlets above. Likewise, the TechPowerUp item on the $118M Samsung verdict, the Dec. 2025 IPWatchdog "Barks & Bites," and the GlobeNewswire DIMM market report were not reached within my search budget, so I cannot independently confirm their treatment of the '314 matter.

Sources

• Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Obviousness Finding Against Memory Module Patent - Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Obviousness Finding Against Memory Module Patent
• CAFC Affirms PTAB Rulings Upholding Netlist Patent - CAFC Affirms PTAB Rulings Upholding Netlist Patent
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Patent Trial and Appeal Board Archives - Posts Tagged: "Patent Trial and Appeal Board"
• Witnesses for both Netlist and Samsung corroborate this
• Netlist Bags Federal Circuit Win After Court Rejects Micron’s Patent Challenge - Netlist Bags Federal Circuit Win After Court Rejects Micron’s Patent Challenge
• 24-1312-2026-02-20.pdf
• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Netlist, Inc. The Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling Upholding Validity of Netlist ’314 Patent - News
• 美 연방항소법원(CAFC), 넷리스트 특허 유효성 3번째 확인…삼성전자 특허침해 소송과 ITC 판정에 영향 미칠듯

Threshold clarification

IPR2022-00744 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court patent infringement suit. In that proceeding, Micron (the named "plaintiff"/first-named party in the case caption) is the petitioner (and later the appellant at the Federal Circuit). The underlying infringement suit — Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00136-LY (W.D. Tex.) — is captioned with Netlist as plaintiff. I answer below for Micron's counsel of record in the IPR (consistent with the case metadata), and flag the related-court counsel at the end.

Counsel of record for Micron (petitioner) in IPR2022-00744

Per the petition's mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) filed with the IPR petition (Paper 2), and corroborated by the PTAB docket, the Federal Circuit opinion, and the related W.D. Tex. filings:

1. Juan C. Yaquian — Lead Counsel

• Firm/office: Winston & Strawn LLP, 800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77002 (USPTO Reg. No. 70,755; 713-651-2600).
• Role: Lead counsel for petitioner Micron in the IPR; service email Winston-IPR-NetList@winston.com.
• Note: Winston & Strawn IP litigator who led Micron's IPR campaign against Netlist's '314 patent; also on the Micron defense team in the parallel W.D. Tex. infringement case. (Source: PTAB mandatory-notices excerpt hosted on PTACTS/USPTO; W.D. Tex. docket Doc. 58, CourtListener recap.)

2. Michael R. Rueckheim — Back-up Counsel (argued the appeal)

• Firm/office: Winston & Strawn LLP, 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 520, Redwood Shores (Redwood City), CA 94065.
• Role: Back-up counsel in the IPR; admitted pro hac vice (Petitioners' Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael R. Rueckheim, Paper 13, Sept. 20, 2022; granted per Paper 14). He argued the appeal for Micron at the Federal Circuit in Nos. 2024-1312, 2024-1313 (decided Feb. 20, 2026).
• Note: Signed the March 30, 2022 stipulation in the parallel W.D. Tex. case tying invalidity contentions to IPR2022-00744/-745 (CourtListener Docket 63002940, Doc. 58), and is a lead Winston & Strawn patent litigator on the Micron/Netlist matters.

3. James C. Lin — Back-up Counsel

• Firm/office: Winston & Strawn LLP, 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 520, Redwood Shores, CA 94065.
• Role: Back-up counsel (pro hac vice contemplated/designated) in the IPR petition's mandatory notices.
• Note: Winston & Strawn patent litigator listed as backup counsel on the petition; active in Micron's IPR and district-court defense work.

Related-court counsel (for context, not "plaintiff" counsel in the IPR)

• District court (W.D. Tex. 1:22-cv-00136-LY): Micron's defense team (defendants there) included Thomas M. Melsheimer and Natalie Arbaugh (Winston & Strawn, Dallas), Michael R. Rueckheim (Redwood City), Matthew Hopkins (Winston & Strawn, Washington, DC), and Juan C. Yaquian (Houston) — per the June 13, 2022 W.D. Tex. filing (CourtListener recap).
• Netlist (patent owner in the IPR / plaintiff in the W.D. Tex. suit): Represented at the PTAB and on appeal by William Milliken, Richard Crudo, and Philip J. Warrick (Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, DC) and Jonathan M. Lindsay, Jason Sheasby, and Annita Zhong (Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach/Los Angeles), per the Federal Circuit opinion; Ryan A. Hargrave and Michael D. Ricketts were admitted pro hac vice as patent-owner counsel in IPR2022-00744 (Papers 7–8, granted in Paper 10).

Caveats

• I found no indication of Micron in-house counsel appearing of record in the IPR; PTAB practice requires designation of lead and back-up counsel, and the petition's mandatory notices list only the three Winston & Strawn attorneys above. If Micron had in-house oversight, it was not disclosed as counsel of record.
• The Patexia/docket-alarm entries confirm the petition, power of attorney (Paper 1), and Rueckheim PHV motion (Paper 13) but the underlying PDFs are paywalled; the counsel names, registration numbers, and office addresses above come from the USPTO PTACTS mandatory-notices excerpt and the Federal Circuit's published opinion, which are reliable primary sources.
• If you instead intended the actual infringement plaintiff (Netlist) in the W.D. Tex. case, its counsel of record is the Irell & Manella / Sterne Kessler team noted above — happy to expand on that separately.

Threshold clarification on roles

IPR2022-00744 is not a patent infringement case — it is an inter partes review at the PTAB. There are no "plaintiffs/defendants"; the parties are Petitioner (Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Micron Technology Texas LLC) and Patent Owner (Netlist, Inc.). The case metadata labels Netlist as "Defendant," which corresponds to Netlist's role as the patent owner/respondent resisting Micron's invalidity challenge. In the parallel district court infringement litigation (Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., W.D. Tex. No. 1:22-cv-00136, Austin Div.; related E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00294), the roles are reversed: Netlist is plaintiff and Micron is defendant. I cover both below.

---

1. Netlist, Inc. — Patent Owner (the "Defendant" per case metadata)

Counsel of record before the PTAB in IPR2022-00744

Per the Final Written Decision's counsel block (as reproduced in the Federal Circuit record in Micron v. Netlist, No. 24-1312, CourtListener docket entry #23), Netlist's PTAB counsel of record was Skiermont Derby LLP:

The docket confirms these appearances: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice (Doc. 3, Apr. 20, 2022), Updated Mandatory Notices (Doc. 6, Jul. 12, 2022), and the pro hac vice motions for Hargrave and Ricketts (Docs. 7–8). I could not pull the raw PDFs of Docs. 3 and 34 to verify whether the mandatory notice also listed additional backup counsel; the counsel block quoted above is from the FWD as reproduced in the appellate record.

Counsel on appeal (CAFC Nos. 24-1312, 24-1313)

The Federal Circuit's Feb. 20, 2026 affirmance opinion (nonprecedential, Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.) lists appellee Netlist's counsel:

• William Milliken (argued) — Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, DC
• Richard Crudo — Sterne Kessler, Washington, DC
• Jonathan M. Lindsay — Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach, CA
• Jason Sheasby — Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, CA
• Hong Annita Zhong — Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, CA
• Philip J. Warrick — Irell & Manella, Washington, DC

Notable experience: Sheasby is Netlist's lead trial counsel in its well-known memory-patent campaigns against Samsung, Micron, and SK hynix (including the $303M E.D. Tex. jury verdict against Samsung, later at issue on appeal); Lindsay has long represented Netlist in district court; Zhong has served as Netlist's lead PTAB counsel in multiple IPRs (e.g., IPR2023-01141); Milliken and Crudo (Sterne Kessler) handled the PTAB appellate briefing.

---

2. Micron entities — Petitioner in the IPR / actual "Defendants" in the underlying infringement suit

If by "defendant(s)" you meant Micron (the party actually defending Netlist's infringement suit in district court), the counsel of record is Winston & Strawn LLP:

• Michael R. Rueckheim — Winston & Strawn, Redwood City, CA (argued the CAFC appeal for Micron; admitted pro hac vice in the IPR per Doc. 13, Sept. 2022)
• Juan C. Yaquian — Winston & Strawn, Houston, TX (also of record in the PTAB FWD)
• Thomas M. Melsheimer — Winston & Strawn, Dallas, TX (lead Texas trial counsel for Micron in W.D. Tex.)
• Natalie Arbaugh, Barry K. Shelton, Matthew Hopkins, Katherine Vidal — Winston & Strawn (Dallas/DC/Houston), signed Micron's district court invalidity-contentions stipulations and status reports referencing IPR2022-00744

---

Key sourcing notes

• The PTAB's Oct. 30, 2023 FWD (Doc. 34) held no challenged claim of the '314 patent unpatentable; the CAFC affirmed on Feb. 20, 2026 (IPWatchdog, Feb. 23, 2026; CAFC opinion at 24-1312/24-1313).
• The counsel block naming Hwang/Hargrave/Ricketts (Skiermont Derby) for Netlist comes from the FWD text reproduced in the CAFC record (CourtListener, Docket 69849094, entry #23) — the captured text contains a typographical rendering of the firm as "SKEIRMONT DERBY LLP."
• I did not independently verify the Apr. 20, 2022 Mandatory Notice (Doc. 3) contents beyond the docket entries; if it named additional backup counsel (e.g., Kelly Hart & Hallman's J. Stephen Ravel/Kelly Ransom, who served as Netlist's Austin local counsel in the W.D. Tex. case), that would only be visible in the filing itself. No filings in this IPR are sealed, and all listed counsel had entered appearances by the time of the FWD.