Netlist Inc v. Micron Technology, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Netlist Inc v. Micron Technology, Inc. (1:25-cv-00323), involves two significant players in the semiconductor memory industry. Plaintiff Netlist Inc. is an operating company based in Irvine, California, known for designing and manufacturing high-performance modular memory subsystems, including hybrid memory and storage-class memory, and possesses a substantial patent portfolio. Defendant Micron Technology, Inc., headquartered in Boise, Idaho, is a major American multinational semiconductor company that develops, manufactures, and sells a wide array of computer memory and data storage products, such as Dynamic Random-Access Memory (DRAM), flash memory, and Solid-State Drives (SSDs). In this case, Netlist Inc. is asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,860,506, which generally relates to a memory module with data buffers, against Micron. While the specific accused products in this particular case are not explicitly detailed in publicly available docket entries at this early stage, Netlist's claims would logically target Micron's memory module technologies, such as DDR4 load-reduced DIMMs (LRDIMMs), DDR5 DIMMs, and High Bandwidth Memory (HBM2E) components, which have been at issue in closely related litigation between these parties.

The procedural posture of this case is highly unusual. Originally filed in the Idaho District Court, the case (1:25-cv-00323) was assigned to Judge Amanda K. Brailsford. However, following a motion by Micron Technology, the case has been formally remanded to the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, County of Ada. This move is particularly notable because it shifts a patent infringement matter, typically handled exclusively in federal courts, to a state court. Micron has initiated multiple lawsuits against Netlist in Idaho state court under the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act.

The case's notability stems primarily from its unique procedural path and the strategic implications of litigating patent infringement under a state bad faith assertion statute. Idaho's "Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act" makes it unlawful to assert patent infringement in bad faith and can lead to equitable relief, costs, fees, and punitive damages. Furthermore, if there is a reasonable likelihood of bad faith, the court "shall require the person to post a bond in an amount equal to a good faith estimate of the target's costs to litigate the claim and amounts reasonably likely to be recovered." This allows a defendant like Micron to use state law to challenge Netlist's patent assertions, potentially imposing significant financial burdens on Netlist, a company that has a history of aggressive patent enforcement and has secured substantial jury awards in other patent infringement disputes against major semiconductor manufacturers.

This analysis details the key legal developments and outcome for the litigation associated with case number 1:25-cv-00323, including parallel proceedings affecting the asserted patent.

Case Caption Clarification:
The provided case caption, "Netlist Inc v. Micron Technology, Inc.," with Netlist Inc as the plaintiff, appears to be inconsistent with the federal docket for case number 1:25-cv-00323 in the Idaho District Court. According to court records, the federal case 1:25-cv-00323 is captioned as "Micron Technology, Inc. et al., v. Netlist, Inc.," where Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. are the plaintiffs, and Netlist, Inc. is the defendant. This federal action was initiated following a removal from Idaho state court.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Federal Case 1:25-cv-00323):

• Removal to Federal Court: The action identified as 1:25-cv-00323 began in Idaho state court and was removed by Netlist, Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. This removal likely occurred in January 2024, as an earlier, related complaint filed by Micron in Idaho state court on December 11, 2023, was removed by Netlist to federal court on January 2, 2024.
• Motions Filed: Following removal, Netlist filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5) and a Motion to Transfer to the Eastern District of Texas (Dkt. 6). Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (collectively, Micron) filed a Motion to Remand (Dkt. 14).

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (Federal Case 1:25-cv-00323):

• Motion to Remand Granted; Other Motions Denied as Moot: On March 25, 2026, the District Court for the District of Idaho issued a Memorandum Decision and Order. The Court granted Micron's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 14), sending the case back to the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, County of Ada. Consequently, Netlist's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5) and Motion to Transfer (Dkt. 6) were denied as moot. This effectively closed the federal case 1:25-cv-00323 without any substantive rulings on the patent infringement claims.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes, Discovery Milestones, Trial Events, and Post-trial Motions:

• Due to the remand of federal case 1:25-cv-00323 to state court, there were no substantive Markman hearings, discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho for this specific case.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Federal Circuit Appeal for US10860506B2:

• IPR Filings: Micron had previously filed IPR requests contesting the validity of several Netlist patents, including US10860506B2, along with motions requesting joinder to pending Samsung IPRs related to the same patents. Micron's IPRs for US10860506B2 were joined with the corresponding Samsung IPR proceedings.
• PTAB Final Written Decisions: While specific dates for the PTAB's final written decisions concerning IPRs on US10860506B2 are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, the outcome was an unpatentability determination.
• Federal Circuit Appeal (Case No. 24-1521): Netlist, Inc. appealed the unpatentability determination of US10860506B2 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1521). This appeal involved [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and three Micron entities (Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC) as respondents. The appeal was filed on February 27, 2024.
• Federal Circuit Affirmance and Patent Cancellation: On December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance, finding no reversible error in the underlying invalidity and cancellation determination of US10860506B2. The basis of termination was recorded as "Unpatentable," meaning US10860506B2 was cancelled and Netlist no longer retains enforceable rights under it against Samsung, Micron, or any third party. This affirmance became final at the appellate level on June 6, 2026, effectively rendering the patent unenforceable.

5. Final Disposition / Present Posture:

• Federal Case 1:25-cv-00323: This specific federal case was closed on March 25, 2026, when it was remanded to the Idaho state court. Its current posture is within the Idaho state court system.
• Patent US10860506B2: The patent itself, which was at issue in various litigations, including potentially the state court action corresponding to 1:25-cv-00323, has been cancelled and is no longer enforceable as of December 9, 2025, confirmed by the Federal Circuit on June 6, 2026. This significant development regarding the patent's validity would render any ongoing or future infringement claims based solely on US10860506B2 moot.

While the federal case Netlist Inc v. Micron Technology, Inc. (1:25-cv-00323) in the Idaho District Court was filed by Netlist Inc., it was subsequently closed and remanded to the state court on March 25, 2026, following a successful motion by Micron Technology, Inc.. Therefore, there are no currently active counsel of record for Netlist Inc. in this specific federal docket.

However, based on Netlist Inc.'s broader patent litigation activities and publicly available information, the following counsel are involved in their intellectual property strategy and representation in other patent matters:

In-House Counsel:

• Richard Kim

  • Role: Vice President of IP Strategy
  • Company: Netlist, Inc. (Irvine, CA)
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Kim has nearly three decades of experience in patent law, including patent procurement, counseling, patent litigation, post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, patent due diligence, and licensing matters. He was previously a partner at Duane Morris LLP and Morrison & Foerster.

• C.K. Hong

  • Role: Chief Executive Officer, Netlist, Inc.
  • Company: Netlist, Inc. (Irvine, CA)
  • Relevant Experience: As CEO, Mr. Hong oversees Netlist's strategic initiatives, including its intellectual property enforcement and licensing efforts.

External Counsel (Firms known for representing Netlist in patent litigation generally):

While specific appearance records for the federal case 1:25-cv-00323 prior to its remand were not immediately available in the search results, Netlist frequently engages prominent intellectual property litigation firms. Two firms with significant patent litigation experience that align with the type of technology at issue (memory and semiconductors) are:

• Robins Kaplan LLP

  • Relevant Experience: Robins Kaplan LLP is a national law firm with a strong intellectual property and technology litigation group. They represent both patent holders and accused infringers across various technologies, including software, semiconductors, and computer equipment. The firm is known for its courtroom victories, IP asset monetization, and handling PTAB-heavy disputes. They have offices in Minneapolis, California, Massachusetts, New York, and the Dakotas.

• Hanson Bridgett LLP

  • Relevant Experience: Hanson Bridgett LLP has an intellectual property practice with attorneys who have litigated patent infringement matters in complex technologies such as semiconductor chips, materials, and fabrication processes; FLASH and DRAM devices; and microprocessor designs. Their patent litigation experience spans various federal district courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Robert A. McFarlane, co-chair of their Intellectual Property practice, focuses on patent infringement and licensing disputes and has experience with semiconductor fabrication and power technologies. The firm has an office in San Francisco, CA.

It is important to reiterate that the federal case 1:25-cv-00323 is closed, and any active litigation regarding this dispute between Netlist and Micron Technology, Inc. would now be proceeding in the Idaho state court system.

In the patent infringement case of Netlist Inc v. Micron Technology, Inc., case 1:25-cv-00323 in the Idaho District Court, the federal action was remanded to the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, County of Ada, and is now closed in the federal court as of March 25, 2026. Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. were the parties that moved for the remand, indicating they were the "Plaintiffs" in the federal court action (which stemmed from a case Netlist brought against them in state court).

Based on their representation of Micron in related Idaho patent litigation, including cases involving the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act, the following attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP are identified as representing Micron:

• Andrew Dufresne

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or senior counsel.
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI.
  • Experience: Argued for Micron Technology, Inc. in the Federal Circuit case Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, which involved Idaho's Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act.

• Amanda Tessar

  • Role: Likely senior counsel.
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Denver, CO.
  • Experience: Represented Micron Technologies in a dispute where an Idaho federal judge imposed an $8 million bond on a patent owner under the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act.

• M. Craig Tyler

  • Role: Likely senior counsel.
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not explicitly stated in snippets but firm has strong Idaho presence).
  • Experience: Represented Micron in a dispute involving the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act, where an $8 million bond was imposed on the patent owner.

• Trevor J. Bervik

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not explicitly stated in snippets but firm has strong Idaho presence).
  • Experience: Represented Micron Technologies in litigation concerning Idaho's Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act.

It is important to note that while these attorneys are documented as representing Micron in similar and closely related Idaho patent disputes, the provided docket snippets for case 1:25-cv-00323 directly name Netlist's attorneys in a pro hac vice appearance but do not explicitly list Micron's counsel in the federal docket entries that are publicly visible in the search results. However, given Perkins Coie's consistent representation of Micron in Idaho patent litigation and Micron's role in moving for remand in the federal case 1:25-cv-00323, it is highly probable these attorneys were also counsel of record for Micron in that federal action before its remand to state court.