Netlist, Inc. v. Google, Inc. et al.

Netlist, Inc. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit at the International Trade Commission (ITC) against technology giants Google, Samsung, and Super Micro. Netlist, an Irvine, California-based company founded in 2000, specializes in designing, manufacturing, and marketing high-performance memory subsystems for server, high-performance computing, and communications markets. They are known for innovations in hybrid memory, combining DRAM and NAND flash, and hold a portfolio of patents related to server memory, hybrid memory, storage class memory, rank multiplication, and load reduction. The defendants are prominent players in the tech industry: Google LLC, a multinational technology corporation focused on internet services, cloud computing, and hardware; Samsung, a global leader in electronics and semiconductor memory manufacturing; and Super Micro Computer, Inc. (Supermicro), a producer of high-performance and high-efficiency servers, storage systems, and server management software for data centers and cloud computing.

The complaint, filed on September 30, 2025, alleges that the defendants are importing and selling certain dynamic random access memory (DRAM) devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe Netlist's patents. Specifically, the accused products include Samsung's DDR5 RDIMMs, MRDIMMs, SODIMMs, UDIMMs, and High Bandwidth Memory (HBM3/3E), as well as servers and cloud-based systems from Google and Super Micro that incorporate these memory components. Netlist's allegations target Google's custom-designed Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) and Google Cloud Platform virtual machine services, and Super Micro's GPU-optimized servers, all of which utilize high-bandwidth memory features.

The lawsuit asserts infringement of six U.S. patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 ("the '608 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 10,025,731 ("the '731 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366 ("the '366 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 10,217,523 ("the '523 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035 ("the '035 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087 ("the '087 patent"). The '608 patent broadly covers a "Memory module with timing-controlled data paths in distributed data buffers," designed to improve memory module performance and reliability. The '731 patent focuses on signal correction circuits in memory modules to reduce noise and enable reliable signals at high data rates. The procedural posture is an active Section 337 investigation (337-TA-1472) before the U.S. International Trade Commission. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will preside over the investigation, with an evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 28, 2026. The ITC is a significant venue for patent litigation due to its ability to issue swift remedies, primarily exclusion orders that can block infringing products from entering the U.S. market, and cease-and-desist orders. Unlike federal courts, the ITC cannot award monetary damages but offers powerful injunctive relief. This case is notable given Netlist's history of patent disputes with memory giants, including previous jury verdicts against Samsung totaling over $420 million, and a $445 million award against Micron. The assertion of these patents at the ITC highlights Netlist's ongoing strategy to enforce its memory technology intellectual property, especially in the context of high-bandwidth memory crucial for AI and cloud computing infrastructure. However, it is also notable that on December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower tribunal's finding that the '608 patent was unpatentable in an invalidity action brought by Samsung.Netlist, Inc., an Irvine, California-based company specializing in high-performance memory subsystems, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit at the International Trade Commission (ITC) against Google, Inc., Samsung, and Super Micro. Netlist designs, manufactures, and markets memory products like hybrid memory (DRAM and NAND flash) and other server memory solutions, holding a portfolio of patents related to these technologies. The defendants are major technology companies: Google LLC, known for its internet services, cloud computing, and hardware; Samsung, a global leader in electronics and semiconductor memory manufacturing; and Super Micro Computer, Inc., a prominent provider of high-performance servers and storage systems for data centers and cloud computing.

The complaint, filed on September 30, 2025, alleges that the defendants are importing and selling certain dynamic random access memory (DRAM) devices, products containing these devices, and their components, which infringe Netlist's patents. The accused products include Samsung's DDR5 RDIMMs, MRDIMMs, SODIMMs, UDIMMs, and High Bandwidth Memory (HBM3/3E), as well as servers and cloud-based systems from Google and Super Micro that incorporate these memory components. Specifically, Netlist's allegations also target Google's custom-designed Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) and Google Cloud Platform virtual machine services, and Super Micro's GPU-optimized servers, all of which utilize high-bandwidth memory features.

The ITC investigation, numbered 337-TA-1472, asserts infringement of six U.S. patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 (the '608 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,025,731 (the '731 patent), U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366 (the '366 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,217,523 (the '523 patent), U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035 (the '035 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087 (the '087 patent). The '608 patent, for example, relates to a "Memory module with timing-controlled data paths in distributed data buffers" for enhanced performance and reliability. The '731 patent generally describes a memory module with signal correction circuits to maintain signal integrity at high data rates. This case is proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the U.S. International Trade Commission, with an evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 28, 2026. The ITC is a favored forum for complainants seeking exclusion orders that can block the importation of infringing goods into the U.S., offering a swift resolution without monetary damages. The litigation is notable as it continues Netlist's pattern of enforcing its intellectual property against major memory and server manufacturers, following previous successful infringement verdicts against Samsung and Micron in district courts. However, it is relevant that on December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the '608 patent was unpatentable in a separate action brought by Samsung.

Netlist, Inc. v. Google, Inc. et al. (ITC Case No. 337-TA-1472) is an active patent infringement litigation currently pending before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission (ITC). Netlist alleges infringement of six patents, including U.S. Patent 10,268,608, by Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) devices, products containing them, and their components, imported and sold by Samsung, Google, and Super Micro.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-09-30: Netlist, Inc. filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, initiating the investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint sought a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against the respondents to bar the entry of infringing products into the U.S.
• 2025-11-20, 2025-12-05, 2025-12-12, 2025-12-16: Netlist supplemented its complaint on these dates.
• 2025-12-29: The USITC voted to institute the investigation, designating it as 337-TA-1472. The named respondents include [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Google LLC, and Super Micro Computer, Inc.
• 2026-01-02: A Notice of Institution of Investigation was published in the Federal Register.
• 2026-02-03, 2026-02-10: Respondents began filing their answers to the complaint around these dates.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-12-03: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly submitted a public-interest statement to the ITC, urging the Commission to prioritize enforcing valid patent rights through exclusion orders and to dismiss speculative harms raised by respondents.
• 2026-01-27: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order setting the target date.
• 2026-02-18: The Commission determined not to review an Initial Determination (Order No. 11) from the ALJ that extended the target date for completion of the investigation to September 3, 2027. The final initial determination is due no later than May 3, 2027.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• 2026-04-06: Netlist, as the complainant, filed its Claim Construction Brief.
• 2026-04-20: A Markman hearing was held.

Discovery Milestones:

• 2026-04-20: A Joint Motion to Amend the Protective Order was granted.

Trial Events and Current Posture:

• 2026-11-23 to 2026-12-03: An evidentiary hearing (trial) is scheduled to take place during this period.
• 2027-05-02: The Initial Determination (ID) is scheduled to be issued by the ALJ.
• 2027-09-02: The target date for the Final Determination by the Commission is set for this date.
• The investigation is currently active and pending before the ALJ.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

The asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 has been the subject of multiple validity challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and subsequent appeals:

• Micron IPRs (denied institution): Micron Technology, Inc. filed two Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against the '608 patent, both of which were denied institution by the PTAB. One such petition, IPR2022-00237, was filed on December 23, 2021, and denied on the merits. Another, IPR2024-00370, was filed on January 10, 2024, and also denied institution, with the Board noting it appeared to be an attempt to use information gained from a previous Micron IPR to improve its chances, a practice known as "roadmapping."
• Samsung IPR (validity upheld): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. also challenged the '608 patent in an IPR (IPR2023-00847) filed on April 27, 2023, where institution was granted on December 12, 2023.
• 2024-12: The PTAB issued a final written decision upholding the validity of Netlist's U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 in the IPR brought by Samsung.
• 2025-03: In a separate IPR concerning another patent asserted in the ITC case, U.S. Patent No. 10,217,523, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision upholding its validity.
• 2025-08: An anonymous third party filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the '608 patent, which the USPTO granted despite Netlist's arguments regarding the duplicative nature of the prior art.
• 2025-12-11: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the PTAB's December 2024 final written decision, upholding the validity of Netlist's '608 patent in the IPR brought by Samsung. Samsung has a 90-day window from this date to file a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Netlist, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC in this ITC investigation (337-TA-1472).

The following attorneys are listed as representing Netlist:

• Daniel E. Yonan, Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C. He is experienced in ITC litigation and has been noted for representing Netlist in their patent enforcement efforts.
• Donald R. Banowit, Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.
• William H. Milliken, Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.
• Richard M. Bemben, Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C. He is also identified as lead counsel for Netlist in at least one parallel PTAB IPR proceeding concerning U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087.
• Lauren A. Watt, Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.

Netlist's IP head emphasizes that external counsel "should understand our business goals." They have a history of successful patent enforcement, including jury verdicts against Samsung and Micron in district courts.

The defendants in Netlist, Inc. v. Google, Inc. et al. (ITC Case No. 337-TA-1472) are represented by the following counsel:

For Google LLC:

• Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

  • Attorneys: Gregory F. Corbett (Participant Representative)
  • Office Location: The firm has offices in Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Wolf Greenfield & Sacks is listed as a participant representative for Google LLC as of September 29, 2025.

• In-house Counsel (Google LLC):

  • Laura Sheridan: Senior Patent Counsel / Head of Patent Policy. Focuses on patent policy, strategy, patent prosecution, litigation, IP due diligence, and post-grant practice.
  • Michael Lee: Director, Head of Patents. Leads a global team responsible for Google's patent matters, including portfolio development, counseling, operations, data science, licensing, transactions, and policy. He has prior experience in patent litigation.
  • Scott Weingaertner: Represents clients in technology disputes, including IP litigation. He led the team for Google in the Oracle v. Google patent and copyright case. (While not explicitly listed as in-house counsel for this specific ITC case, his prominent role in Google's patent litigation suggests an advisory or oversight capacity).

For Samsung (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.):

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP

  • Attorneys: Paul F. Brinkman (Participant Representative)
  • Office Location: Kirkland & Ellis has numerous offices, including in Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Kirkland & Ellis is listed as a participant representative for all Samsung entities as of September 29, 2025.

• In-house Counsel (Samsung Electronics):

  • Matthew Bathon: Principal Legal Counsel. Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and has extensive experience litigating Section 337 investigations at the ITC.
  • Phillip Lee: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center. Experienced in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing, having appeared before federal district courts, the PTAB, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit.

For Super Micro Computer, Inc.:

• Firm: Fulbright & Jaworski LLP (now Norton Rose Fulbright)
  • Attorneys: Richard S. Zembek (Participant Representative)
  • Office Location: Fulbright & Jaworski LLP is listed as a participant representative. (Norton Rose Fulbright has various offices globally, including in the U.S.).
  • Experience: Fulbright & Jaworski LLP is listed as a participant representative for Super Micro Computer, Inc. as of September 29, 2025.

It is important to note that the listed participant representatives are typically lead counsel for the respective parties in ITC investigations.