Litigation

Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

stayed

2:22-cv-00203-JRG-RSP

Filed
2022-06-10

Patents at issue (1)

11016918

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

Netlist asserted six patents, including the '918 patent, against Micron in the Eastern District of Texas. The case was stayed pending PTAB final written decisions; after the PTAB invalidated all asserted claims of the six patents, including the '918 patent, the court maintained the stay.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press before drafting.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Let me pull the docket and key orders.

Key Legal Developments — Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00203-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Two threshold corrections to the case record before the chronology:

  1. Patents at issue. The metadata field lists only the ’918 patent, but Micron I was filed with six asserted patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,860,506 (’506), 10,949,339 (’339), 11,016,918 (’918), 11,232,054 (’054), 8,787,060 (’060), and 9,318,160 (’160). Netlist dropped the ’506 and ’339 in the Second Amended Complaint (Aug. 2023), so the ’918 was one of four patents live at the time of the stay. The ’918 is the patent discussed in most detail below, with the sibling patents noted for context.
  2. Do not confuse this case with Micron II. The well-publicized $445 million verdict of 2024-05-23 (Micron Owes Netlist $445 Million, Bloomberg Law, 2024-05-24) was returned in Netlist v. Micron, No. 2:22-cv-00294 — a separate EDTX case asserting the ’912 and ’417 patents. Bloomberg's own case line confirms the 00294 number. That verdict, and the PTAB's July 30, 2024 invalidation of the ’912/’417, have no bearing on the ’918 case addressed here. Similarly, Netlist's April 21, 2023 $303M Samsung verdict (Netlist v. Samsung, No. 2:21-cv-463) involved the ’918 and sibling patents but is a different defendant and case.

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2022)

Date Event
2022-06-10 Netlist files complaint in EDTX Marshall asserting the six patents against Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC (Dkt. 1). Accused products per Netlist's 10-Q: Micron LRDIMMs, PMIC-equipped memory modules, and HBM components. Case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
2022-07-01 / 07-05 Micron obtains unopposed 30-day extension to answer (to 2022-08-04).
2022-08-04 Micron files answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims (declaratory judgment of noninfringement/invalidity; affirmative defenses include patent misuse and breach of RAND obligations).

There was no Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss — Micron answered and then used severance/stay, rather than dismissal, as its early procedural vehicle.

2. First stay/severance fight — the WDTX first-filed gambit (2022)

  • 2022-09-02 — Micron moves to sever and stay the four "overlapping patents" (’506, ’339, ’918, ’054), arguing Netlist was forum-shopping around the first-filed Austin case, Netlist v. Micron, No. 1:22-cv-00136-LY (W.D. Tex.), where Micron had sought leave to add counterclaims on those patents (Dkt. 28).
  • 2022-09-26 — Netlist opposes, with the Mangione-Smith declaration (Dkt. 31).
  • 2022-10-12/13 — After the Austin court denied Micron's parallel motion, Micron withdraws the sever-and-stay motion; Judge Payne grants the withdrawal (Dkt. 35, 36). Netlist's 10-Q memorializes this: "Following the denial of its parallel motion in the WDTX, Micron moved to withdraw its stay motion in this case, which Chief Judge Gilstrap entered on October 15, 2022."
  • 2022-10-18/19 — Docket Control Order, Discovery Order, and Protective Order entered; case set for a July 19, 2023 Markman and January 22, 2024 jury trial.

Strategic significance: this early loss foreclosed Micron's "first-filed" transfer/severance theory and put the case on a fast EDTX track — which is what later made the PTAB stay fight so consequential.

3. Amended pleadings (2023)

  • First Amended Complaint filed in spring 2023; Micron answers on 2023-05-17 (Dkt. 76), again with counterclaims.
  • 2023-08-14/16 — Leave granted for, and Netlist files, the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 128, 145). Per the later R&R, "[n]etlist has since dropped the ’506 and ’339 Patents from this case" (Dkt. 421 at 1 n.1). Netlist also added PMIC/HBM

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll research press coverage across several angles.

Key distinction noted: the widely covered $445M verdict is in a sister case (2:22-cv-00294, '912/'417 patents). Let me search specifically for coverage of the '918 patent and the stayed 203 case.

Important: I'm seeing a Federal Circuit decision (Sept. 2026) affirming the PTAB on the '918 patent. Let me investigate that and press coverage.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the counsel of record for Netlist across the docket, PTAB filings, and legal press.

Good initial hits. Now let me pin down the full attorney roster, the local-counsel arrangement, and any 2025–2026 changes of counsel.

Let me verify the docket's attorney list, the recent 2026 appearance, and whether the appeal has resolved.

Bottom line

Netlist's appearance in this case has been stable since 2022: Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles) is lead/trial counsel, appearing pro hac vice, and McKool Smith, P.C.'s Marshall, Texas office is counsel of record as the Texas/local firm. No in‑house Netlist attorney has ever entered an appearance on this docket, and no Netlist attorney has withdrawn except one Irell associate (Yanan Zhao) in December 2024. There is one unexplained 2026 pro hac vice appearance I could not fully verify (see "Open items" below).

Primary docket source: CourtListener docket for No. 2:22‑cv‑00203, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63378313/netlist-inc-v-micron-technology-inc/ (mirrored at Docket Alarm, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--22-cv-00203/Netlist_Inc._v._Micron_Technology_Inc._et_al/).

1. Lead / trial counsel — Irell & Manella LLP

Attorney Role Firm & office Notes
Jason G. Sheasby Lead counsel (pro hac vice); argued Netlist's discovery motions and appeared at hearings Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Irell's IP litigation lead and Netlist's principal strategist across the Micron and Samsung campaigns ($303M Samsung verdict, 2023; $445M Micron verdict, May 2024); listed first in Netlist's Irell signature blocks here (Dkt. 318).
Thomas C. Werner Of counsel / trial team (PHV) Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles Appeared Aug. 31, 2022; on all Netlist

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the counsel of record for the Micron defendants in this case.

Let me dig into the docket parties page and check for recent counsel changes.

Let me pin down the recent 2025–2026 counsel changes.