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.

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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. 1:24-cv-00001 counsel", "Netlist, Inc. counsel U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho 1:24-cv-00001", "Netlist attorneys 1:24-cv-00001", "Netlist, Inc. patent litigation attorneys", "attorneys for Netlist in Micron Technology v. Netlist Idaho", "Netlist legal counsel Micron Idaho case"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant, Netlist, Inc., in 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.

I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles (lead, of counsel, local, in-house), their firms and office locations, and a brief note on their relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases.

I will use web search to look for docket entries, court opinions, legal news articles (Law360, Reuters Legal), and firm websites.

Given the case was remanded to state court and is now closed at the federal level, I should focus on the counsel who appeared for Netlist during the federal court proceedings (removal and remand).Here is the counsel of record representing Netlist, Inc. in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., case number 1:24-cv-00001, during its proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho:

• Andrew Henderson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA (commonly associated with Irell & Manella's primary offices)
  • Note: Andrew Henderson is listed as an attorney for Netlist, Inc. in this case. Irell & Manella is known for its strong intellectual property and patent litigation practice, frequently representing technology companies.

• James L. Martin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified in provided snippets, but he appears for Netlist, Inc. in docket entries related to motions to remand, dismiss, or transfer.
  • Office Location: To be determined.
  • Note: James L. Martin appeared for Netlist, Inc. in filing a memorandum in opposition to Micron's motion to remand and a motion to dismiss or transfer.

• Michael Harbour

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified in provided snippets.
  • Office Location: To be determined.
  • Note: Michael Harbour is mentioned in connection with Netlist, Inc.'s Notice of Removal.

Further information regarding the specific office locations for James L. Martin and Michael Harbour, as well as their detailed litigation experience beyond their general appearance for Netlist, is not immediately available in the provided search results for this specific case. Given the case was remanded to state court and is now closed in the federal district court, the appearances listed primarily pertain to the initial federal proceedings regarding removal and remand.