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 case and the related Netlist/Micron litigation, starting with the specific articles provided and broader searches.

Let me search for the specific listed articles and additional coverage angles.

Press coverage of Micron v. Netlist

Coverage specific to this Idaho case is thin, and most of it is procedural rather than merits-based. The most directly on-point reporting I located is Law360, which ran a July 2, 2025 item titled "Netlist Asks For Toss Of Rival's 'Bad Faith' Claims," reporting that Netlist asked an Idaho federal judge to dismiss Micron's bad-faith patent-litigation suit on the theory that it was "simply an effort to undo a $445 [million] patent verdict that Netlist won against Micron in Texas federal court last year." That damages figure is the only number tied to the Idaho dispute in the coverage I found, and it belongs to the separate Eastern District of Texas case, not to 1:24-cv-00001. The remand appeal itself drew attention in the patent bar: Finnegan's Federal Circuit IP blog previewed the June 5, 2026 argument in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., Nos. 2024-2281/2282, framing the question as "whether the district court correctly determined that federal-question jurisdiction was lacking over state-law bad faith patent assertion claims" — and noting the distinctive posture that the PTAB had already invalidated every asserted claim of the underlying patents ('833, '054, '918) while "Netlist has not dismissed either infringement lawsuit." That the appeal was argued in June 2026 is worth flagging against the case metadata's "Remanded / Closed" status: the federal district case is closed, but the jurisdictional fight over it was still live on appeal as of this spring.

The '035 patent named in this case's caption is largely covered through the IPR/Federal Circuit track rather than the Idaho track. IPWatchdog ran a February 23, 2026 piece on the Federal Circuit affirming PTAB rulings upholding a Netlist patent; the same day, Netlist's own newswire release (carried by Nasdaq, EQS, and the Globe and Mail) stated that "[t]he PTAB previously found that claims 2 and 6 of the '035 Patent were not invalid. Micron did not appeal that finding" — a genuine win for Netlist on the '035 patent, since Micron's IPR2022-00236 knocked out claims 1, 10–13, 21 and 22 but left claims 2 and 6 standing. Note a contradiction with the previous section of this case file: the caption and the "Key legal developments" section name different patents. The metadata and case summary identify U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035 as the patent at issue, while the earlier section states the Idaho bad-faith suit concerned only the '918 and '054 patents. The press and the Federal Circuit materials I reviewed do not resolve that discrepancy — the '035 patent's live forum appears to be the Western District of Texas case (1:22-cv-00136) and ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-3854, not the Idaho action.

The broader Netlist–Micron war generated far more coverage than the Idaho case, most of it in the last six weeks. IPWatchdog reported on September 2, 2026 that the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. affirming a PTAB final written decision holding all challenged claims of Netlist's U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 unpatentable as obvious over Ellsberry in view of Halbert, rejecting Netlist's substantial-evidence and Administrative Procedure Act arguments. Law360 characterized the same day as "a series of wins at the Federal Circuit" for Micron "upholding invalidations of five computer memory patents," and VitalLaw's IP Law Daily summarized it as Micron "preserv[ing] PTAB obviousness wins over memory-module patent claims." Separately, the ITC institution dominated the September 24, 2026 news cycle: the USITC's own release (News Release 26-138) confirmed Inv. No. 337-TA-1523 against Micron, Micron Semiconductor Products, HPE, Lenovo and Super Micro, based on Netlist's August 11, 2026 complaint, and Netlist's press release quoted CEO C.K. Hong: "The Samsung agreement established an important industry benchmark for the value of our IP. We intend to continue our enforcement efforts against unauthorized users such as Micron." IIPLA and Stocktwits/Yahoo Finance both stressed that the four ITC patents ('731, '523, '366, '407) are "different patents" from the Micron disputes and that institution "does not equate to a finding of infringement." Importantly for this case file, none of the ITC coverage links the ITC action to the '035 patent or to the Idaho bad-faith litigation.

Reporting also goes beyond the court record on market impact and executive/analyst framing. 24/7 Wall St. (syndicated to Yahoo Finance) reported on August 17, 2026 that Super Micro fell 4% to $38.40 and Dell 3% to $473.91 after Netlist's ITC complaint, while "Micron rallied 4% despite being named," reading the split as "profit-taking plus legal overhang rather than a break in AI demand" and noting Dell was "not named in the disclosed ITC complaint." The same reporting disclosed that Netlist had "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," and attributed caution on Super Micro to a Northland Capital Markets note — analyst material that goes beyond anything in the pleadings. Benzinga added retail-sentiment data and the ITC's procedural clock (45 days to set a target date, 60-day Presidential/USTR review window). On the downside for Netlist, MarketWatch reported Netlist shares tumbling 20% to $5.32 after an appeals court affirmed a ruling that "Micron hadn't infringed upon one of Netlist's patents" directed to DIMM-based memory systems; the retrieved excerpt does not identify the patent number or the decision date, so I cannot confirm which appeal or which patent this refers to.

Items I could not independently verify. My searches did not surface retrievable copies of the Biztoc item "US ITC to probe Micron over Netlist patent claims" (its underlying event — the ITC probe — is confirmed by the USITC and Netlist releases above), the IBTimes.com.au and Advfn September 14, 2026 Micron sell-off pieces, the Crypto Briefing August 17, 2026 article (I retrieved the essentially identical 24/7 Wall St./Yahoo version), the IPWatchdog Barks & Bites roundup of December 12, 2025, the GlobeNewswire DIMM market report of September 19, 2025, and the TechPowerUp report of Netlist's $118 million second Samsung trial win. I therefore make no claims about their contents. One caveat on sourcing overall: this litigation is covered overwhelmingly as an earnings/momentum story — retail-sentiment widgets, price targets and Stocktwits data appear alongside legal analysis — and several of the outlets above are aggregators or syndicators rather than original reporters, so the same few underlying facts (ITC institution, the September 2 Federal Circuit ruling, the Samsung settlement) recur across many bylines.

Sources

• Американской Micron могут запретить поставлять DDR5 в США — Netlist добилась расследования USITC
• 美国ITC对DRAM设备启动337调查(III)，美光、惠普、联想等在列
• 美国ITC正式对动态随机存取存储器（DRAM）设备及其下游产品和组件（III）启动337调查
• 美国ITC正式对DRAM设备及其下游产品和组件（III）启动337调查
• 快看-蓝鲸财经
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state
• 58. Aside from ceasing its assertion of the '215 Patent, Netlist has never taken steps to dismiss the 294 Case
• In sum, the PTAB has issued appealable, non-final decisions determining that each of the nine patents Netlist asserted against M...
• https://www
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• 1. Netlist has failed to plead its claims with sufficient specificity or factual support to place Micron on notice of the claims...

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.

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.