Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.

The case Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., case number 1:24-cv-00001, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, originated from Micron's lawsuit accusing Netlist of bad faith assertions of patent infringement.

Parties and their Roles:
Plaintiff Micron Technology, Inc. is an American multinational semiconductor company headquartered in Boise, Idaho, and is one of the world's largest manufacturers of computer memory and data storage products, including DRAM, flash memory, and SSDs. Defendant Netlist, Inc. is a Delaware-registered corporation headquartered in Irvine, California, that designs and sells high-performance SSDs and modular memory subsystems. Netlist holds a portfolio of patents in areas like server memory, hybrid memory, storage class memory, rank multiplication, and load reduction, and has a history of patent assertion and litigation against major semiconductor manufacturers. While Netlist manufactures and sells products, its significant engagement in patent assertion and licensing, particularly against industry giants, suggests it operates, at least in part, with characteristics of a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) in this context.

Accused Technology and Patents:
This specific case in Idaho did not involve Micron's products as the "accused product" in the traditional sense of a patent infringement suit. Instead, Micron accused Netlist of bad faith assertions of patent infringement under Idaho state law, alleging that Netlist knew certain patents it was asserting against Micron were invalid but continued to litigate them. The underlying patent infringement assertions made by Netlist against Micron, which prompted Micron's bad faith suit, involved several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035 ('035 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 ('608 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,489,314 ('314 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 8,301,833 ('833 patent), among others. The '035 patent, for example, relates to a memory module with data buffering, specifically describing a dedicated data path for each signal line. The '608 patent pertains to memory modules with timing-controlled data paths in distributed data buffers, aiming to electrically isolate memory devices to allow for more devices without sacrificing signal integrity or speed. The '314 patent is directed to a "memory module" that enables a computer to access and retrieve information for processing tasks, featuring non-concurrent operation of memory device ranks and matching internal/external data communication speeds.

Procedural Posture and Noteworthiness:
The case was initially filed by Micron in Idaho state court, alleging violations of the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. Netlist subsequently removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (Case No. 1:24-cv-00001), presided over by Chief Judge David C. Nye. Micron then successfully moved to remand the case back to Idaho state court, arguing that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Micron's suit "targets only bad-faith assertion conduct," which does not inherently disrupt federal patent law objectives. This procedural posture is notable because it highlights a strategy by an accused infringer (Micron) to use state-level bad faith patent assertion statutes against a patent holder (Netlist), attempting to shift the legal battleground from federal patent law to state consumer protection or business tort law. The remand to state court means the substantive infringement dispute of Netlist's patents against Micron remains unresolved at the federal level and has transferred to the Idaho state court. This case is part of a broader, ongoing, and aggressive multi-venue litigation campaign by Netlist against major semiconductor manufacturers like Micron, Samsung, and SK Hynix, involving numerous patent infringement suits and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Netlist has secured significant jury verdicts in other cases, notably a $445 million damages award against Micron in the Eastern District of Texas related to other patents.

Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. - Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This case, originally filed in Idaho state court as CV01-24-01032 and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (Case No. 1:24-cv-00001), concerned Micron's allegations of bad faith patent assertions by Netlist involving U.S. Patent Nos. 9,918,054 ('918) and 9,824,054 ('054). The federal case was ultimately remanded to Idaho state court and is now closed at the federal level, though the broader dispute continues in state court and on appeal.

Chronological Legal Developments:

• Initial Pleadings & Removal (2024-01-16): Micron Technology, Inc. filed a complaint against Netlist, Inc. in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County (Case No. CV01-24-01032). Micron alleged that Netlist violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by making bad faith assertions of infringement concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 9,918,054 and 9,824,054 in the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX). Netlist subsequently removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, where it was assigned case number 1:24-cv-00001. The specifics of Netlist's answer or counterclaims in the federal district court are not extensively detailed in the public record preceding the remand, suggesting the focus remained on jurisdictional issues.

• Pre-trial Motions (2024-01-18 - 2024-02-07):

  • On January 18, 2024, Micron filed a Motion to Remand the case back to Idaho state court, arguing that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
  • On February 7, 2024, Netlist filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Transfer the case.

• Remand and Federal Case Closure (2024-08-13): The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, presided over by Judge David C. Nye, granted Micron's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 14) on August 13, 2024. The court determined that federal jurisdiction was not established. Consequently, Netlist's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (Dkt. 17) was denied as moot. The federal case (1:24-cv-00001) was then closed. No claim construction (Markman) or significant discovery beyond the jurisdictional motions occurred in the federal district court.

• Appeal of Remand to Federal Circuit (2024-08-20 - 2025-06-12):

  • On August 20, 2024, Netlist appealed the remand order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) under Case No. 2024-2282, which was later consolidated with a related appeal (Case No. 2024-2281). Netlist also moved the District of Idaho to stay the remand.
  • Micron responded on September 17, 2024, by moving to dismiss or transfer Netlist's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the CAFC denied this motion on December 19, 2024.
  • On June 12, 2025, the CAFC denied Netlist's motion to stay the remand pending the appeal. The appeal of the remand remains pending at the CAFC.

• Idaho State Court Proceedings Post-Remand (2024-09-18 - Present):

  • Following the federal remand, Netlist moved to dismiss the Idaho State Court case for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on September 18, 2024. The Idaho State Court denied this motion on December 20, 2024.
  • On June 27, 2025, the Idaho State Court granted Netlist's motion to stay the case until the CAFC issues its opinion on appeals related to inter partes review (IPR) decisions concerning two unspecified patents.
  • A discovery master was appointed on January 12, 2026, to address pending discovery disputes between the parties.
  • The Idaho State Court case is currently set for trial starting on May 11, 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

While U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035 was not the specific patent at issue in the Micron v. Netlist 1:24-cv-00001 federal bad faith assertion case, it has been a subject of other litigation between the parties and parallel PTAB proceedings. Netlist had previously asserted the '035 patent, among others, in infringement complaints against Micron in the Western District of Texas.

• Micron IPR against '035 patent (IPR2022-00237): Micron Technology, Inc., along with Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. and Micron Technology Texas LLC, filed an inter partes review petition (IPR2022-00237) challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035 on February 15, 2022. This IPR was related to IPR2022-00236, which involved the '035 patent and its parentage to the '608 patent. The outcome of IPR2022-00237 regarding the '035 patent is a Final Written Decision, but the specific details of its findings (claims shown unpatentable or not) are not fully detailed in the provided snippets.
• Samsung IPR against '035 patent: Samsung also filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035. On February 24, 2026, the PTAB issued a Discretionary Denial, refusing to institute review of the patent. This means the '035 patent remains intact from this specific challenge at the PTAB. The denial, often reflecting "Fintiv" considerations where parallel litigation is advanced, removed a procedural tool for Samsung to delay litigation and pressure settlement.

Final Disposition of Federal Case:

The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho case (1:24-cv-00001) is formally closed due to the remand order. No determination on the merits of Micron's bad faith assertion claims, or any patent infringement, was made at the federal level. The substantive dispute has been transferred to Idaho state court, and the appeal of the federal court's remand decision is still pending before the Federal Circuit.

I'll research press coverage of this litigation across several angles.

Major development found — a $600M settlement. Let me verify the specific listed articles and dig into the '035 patent and Idaho case coverage.

Press coverage of the Micron–Netlist patent litigation

The dominant 2026 story is not the Idaho bad-faith case but Netlist's ITC/court campaign — and its October 2026 resolution. Reuters (Blake Brittain, Sept. 29, 2026) reported that Netlist filed a new ITC complaint, lodged under seal the prior Friday, seeking to block imports of Micron DRAM and of Google, Nvidia and Broadcom GPUs, servers and other products incorporating it; the complaint asserts two Netlist patents said to cover high-bandwidth memory (HBM). Reuters quoted Netlist CEO C.K. Hong: "Netlist has spent decades developing advanced memory technologies now used in rapidly expanding AI infrastructure." Netlist's own press release (via StorageNewsletter, Oct. 9, 2026) identified the asserted patents as U.S. Nos. 12,308,087 and 12,646,537, targeting Micron's HBM3E, HBM4 and HBM4E products, and named Nvidia, Broadcom and Google as downstream respondents; the release states Netlist is represented by Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox and Irell & Manella. Reuters noted this followed an August 2026 ITC complaint over chips used in Super Micro, HPE and Lenovo products, and that Netlist had won a $445 million verdict against Micron in Marshall, Texas in 2024. That earlier August campaign is described in detail by Communications Daily (Sept. 24, 2026) and IIPLA, which reported on Sept. 24, 2026 that the ITC had voted to institute Investigation No. 337-TA-1523 covering four Netlist patents on DDR5 RDIMMs/MRDIMMs, with Netlist's PR listing those patents as U.S. Nos. 10,025,731, 10,217,523, 12,373,366 and 12,675,407, and seeking exclusion and cease-and-desist orders.

The reported numbers — and the resolution. The single largest reported figure is the settlement: Reuters (Oct. 6, 2026) reported that Micron would pay $600 million — $30 million per quarter over a five-year license to Netlist's portfolio, including HBM technology. Dow Jones via TradingView added that the $30M quarterly installments run from Q4 2026 through Q3 2031 and that the agreement "settles all pending legal proceedings between the two parties." Netlist's own investor release confirms the parties "settle and mutually release all pending legal proceedings." Netlist's ITC/Federal Circuit counsel Sterne Kessler stated on Oct. 14, 2026 that the firm led a cross-practice team (William Milliken, Richard Bemben, Daniel Yonan and others) in the disputes leading to the settlement, and likened it to the earlier Samsung deal. On that Samsung benchmark, IIPLA reported what it called a "landmark" August 2026 settlement resolving a global dispute after two Texas jury verdicts totaling $421 million; a Korean trade report (IPDaily) put the terms at roughly $897 million in licensing over five years, $1.5 billion in memory supply, and the purchase of 10 million Netlist shares — figures I could not confirm in English-language primary sources.

Market and analyst reaction went beyond the court record. Reuters noted Micron and the other companies declined or did not respond to comment requests, and Netlist's ITC release quotes Hong saying, "The Samsung agreement established an important industry benchmark for the value of our IP." IGOR'S LAB cautioned readers that "there is no import ban at this point" and that the headline framing overstates the posture, while stressing HBM's centrality to AI accelerators and that Micron is one of only a few large-scale HBM suppliers. GuruFocus similarly framed the filing as adding supply-chain legal exposure without establishing infringement. Yahoo Finance tied the complaint to Micron's AI business, citing management's disclosure of over $1 billion in HBM4 revenue and record quarterly results. [Simply Wall St](https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/semiconductors/nasdaq-mu/micron-technology/news/what-does-micron-technology-mu-need

Sources

• Netlist Files Complaint for Import Ban on Micron Chips in AI Products
• Netlist Files Complaint for Import Ban on Micron Chips in AI Products - Business NewsTechTech & InternetNetlist seeks US import ban on Micron chips used in Google, Nvidia AI computing
• Netlist Seeks US Import Ban on Micron Memory Chips Used by Nvidia and Google
• Netlist Calls for U.S. Import Ban on Micron HBM - Netlist Calls for U.S. Import Ban on Micron HBM – NVIDIA, Google, and Broadcom AI Hardware Also in the Crosshairs
• Netlist seeks US import ban on Micron chips used in Google, Nvidia AI computing
• Netlist seeks U.S. import ban on Micron chips used in Google, Nvidia AI computing
• Netlist Files Trade Complaint Seeking Import Block on Micron Memory Chips - Skip to navigation Skip to main content Skip to right column
• Refinitiv News
• Netlist seeks U.S. import ban on Micron chips used in Google, Nvidia AI computing - - 87° Partly Cloudy
• Broadcom Stocks Edge Higher as Netlist Seeks AI-Memory Import Ba - 🚀 Enjoy a 7-Day Free Trial Thru Oct 12, 2026
• Netlist Files New ITC Action Against Micron Technology, Inc. Involving HBM Patents for AI Computing
• 美 국제무역위원회(ITC), 마이크론 등 4개사 무역법 337조 조사 착수

Micron Technology, Inc. was represented by Teague Ian Donahey and Kim B. Goldberg in the federal court case (1:24-cv-00001) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Here is the information about the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Teague Ian Donahey

  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiffs Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc.
  • Firm and Office Location: The specific firm and office location for Mr. Donahey are not explicitly stated in the provided snippets. However, his appearance in a federal case in the District of Idaho suggests he likely has a presence or local affiliation there.
  • Relevant Experience: He appeared for the plaintiffs in the motion to remand the case back to Idaho state court.

• Kim B. Goldberg

  • Role: Counsel for Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc., appearing pro hac vice.
  • Firm and Office Location: The specific firm and office location for Ms. Goldberg are not explicitly stated in the provided snippets. Her pro hac vice appearance indicates she is an out-of-state attorney admitted for this specific case.
  • Relevant Experience: She was approved for pro hac vice appearance for Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc.

It is important to note that Michael Ray is the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary at Micron Technology, responsible for Micron's global legal, compliance, and intellectual property functions. While he is a key legal figure for Micron, the provided information does not indicate that he was counsel of record in this specific case.

This case was ultimately remanded to Idaho state court and is now closed at the federal level. The listed attorneys were involved during the federal court proceedings.

I'll research Netlist's counsel of record in this case. Let me start with the docket and CourtListener filings.

Good initial data. Let me verify the specific attorneys and their firms.

Now let me verify the individual attorneys and the appellate counsel.

Defendant's counsel of record — Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00001-DCN (D. Idaho)

Summary: Netlist is represented by a two-tier defense team: Los Angeles-based Irell & Manella LLP as national/lead counsel (appearing pro hac vice), and Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP of Boise as local counsel. All three named attorneys below appear on the public docket; none of the appearances are sealed.

Evidence trail

• Pro hac vice order (Dkt. 10 & 11): "DOCKET ENTRY ORDER APPROVING (Dkt.10, 11) Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Michael Harbour and Andrew Henderson for Netlist, Inc.," signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham. Both motions were filed by James L. Martin appearing for Defendant Netlist, Inc. (PACER Monitor docket, 1:24-cv-00001).
• Counsel of record per the court's remand opinion coverage: "Attorneys: Christopher C. McCurdy (Holland & Hart LLP) for Micron … Andrew Henderson (Irell & Manella LLP) for Netlist, Inc." (VitalLaw IP Law Daily, Aug. 14, 2024).
• Firm/office confirmation: Irell's signature block on Netlist's later filings lists "OF COUNSEL: Michael Harbour, Andrew J. Strabone, Andrew Henderson — Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067," plus Blair A. Silver in Irell's Washington, DC office (750 17th St. NW) (Netlist's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, D. Del. C.A. 26-246-JLH).
• Henderson's Netlist track record: Irell's own case study, "Irell Secures $445 Million in Damages for Netlist Against Micron" (May 2024), lists Henderson on the Micron trial team; the firm's June 2026 awards item lists him (as "Drew Henderson") among the professionals on Netlist v. Samsung (irell.com; irell.com awards item). The E.D. Tex. docket in Netlist v. Micron (2:22-cv-00294) likewise shows "Andrew Henderson … Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles."
• Local counsel credentials: Hawley Troxell partner, University of Idaho J.D. 1990, admitted in Idaho since 1990; Best Lawyers 2017 "Lawyer of the Year" (Litigation & Insurance), Chambers-ranked, Super Lawyers 2009–2025; chaired the Idaho State Bar Professional Conduct Board and sat on the D. Idaho Local Civil Rules Committee (Hawley Troxell bio; Super Lawyers; Best Lawyers).

Things worth flagging

1. This is not an infringement case, so "defense counsel" needs a caveat. The docket shows Netlist as the removing defendant in a Micron state-law bad-faith-assertion action under Idaho Code § 48-1701 et seq. — not as an accused infringer. Netlist's Idaho team is therefore litigating jurisdiction/remand, not patent merits. That is consistent with the fact that no Markman, infringement contentions, or merits discovery appear on the '001 docket.
2. A related Idaho case used the same defense team — do not conflate them. In Micron v. Netlist, No. 1:25-cv-00323 (D. Idaho, removed June 24, 2025), the same James L. Martin is local counsel (he signed that Notice of Removal) and Michael Harbour docketed the reply briefs, with pro hac vice motions filed for Harbour/Henderson. Separately, a "Landon Scott Brown" appears for Netlist, Inc. on an Idaho docket alongside Martin and Harbour (UniCourt docket mirror of Micron Technology, Inc. et al v. Netlist, Inc.), filing a Motion to Dismiss with a Tobin Hobbs declaration. I could not confirm from retrieved sources that Brown appeared in 1:24-cv-00001 specifically (the mirror's case identity is ambiguous and appears to correspond to the companion removal), so I list him only as a possible additional Netlist counsel in the related Idaho matters, not as counsel of record in the '001 case.
3. Appellate counsel for Nos. 2024-2281/2282 is not verified. Netlist appealed the remand (Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2282, later consolidated with 2024-2281) on August 20, 2024, and the Notice of Appeal was docketed by Andrew Henderson in the district court. I did not retrieve a Federal Circuit docket or appearance form confirming who argued on June 5, 2026. Note also that Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox (Directors including William Milliken) has publicly stated it served as Netlist's "USITC and Federal Circuit counsel" in the Micron patent disputes leading to the October 2026 settlement — but that engagement is described in the context of the ITC and IPR appeals, not this Idaho remand appeal, so I do not attribute it to counsel of record here. (Sterne Kessler press release).
4. Contradiction with prior sections of this case file (repeated). The metadata and the case overview name U.S. Pat. No. 9,824,035 ('035) as "the patent at issue," while the docket materials for the Idaho bad-faith actions instead reference the '833, '054 and '918 patents (and the '001 remand opinion's jurisdictional analysis centers on the '833 patent). The press coverage I reviewed also does not link the '035 patent to the Idaho action. Nothing in the Netlist counsel record resolves that discrepancy — the same Irell/Hawley Troxell team appears regardless.
5. No in-house/Netlist legal-department attorney is identified on the Idaho docket, and I found no sourced basis to name one. I also found no indication that Jason G. Sheasby (Irell's lead Netlist trial lawyer in Texas) entered an appearance in the Idaho '001 case, even though he is Netlist's most prominent patent counsel elsewhere (e.g., the Central District of California '523/'407 action).

Bottom line for the record: counsel of record for Defendant Netlist, Inc. in 1:24-cv-00001 are Andrew Henderson and Michael D. Harbour of Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles) as pro hac vice/national counsel, and James L. Martin of Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP (Boise) as local counsel — with Henderson serving as the functional lead, having argued (briefed) the stay motion and taken the appeal.