Netlist Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

This patent infringement litigation involves Netlist Inc, a California-based operating company specializing in high-performance solid-state drives (SSDs) and modular memory subsystems, including those used in cloud computing and AI applications, as the plaintiff. The defendant is [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd., a global electronics giant headquartered in South Korea, renowned for its consumer electronics, mobile devices, and as a major manufacturer of semiconductor components, particularly memory chips. The core of the dispute centers on Samsung's alleged infringement of Netlist's memory technology patents, specifically concerning high-performance memory modules used in servers and computing systems. The accused products in the underlying district court case included Samsung's DDR4 LRDIMMs and other memory products with similar structures.

The patent at issue in this specific Federal Circuit appeal, 24-1521, is U.S. Patent No. 10,860,506, titled "Memory module with timing-controlled data buffering." This patent describes a memory module design incorporating memory devices, a module control circuit, and multiple buffer circuits positioned between data signal lines and memory devices to manage data timing. This technology is considered fundamental to the operation of modern Load-Reduced DIMM (LRDIMM) and Registered DIMM (RDIMM) server memory modules.

While the overarching litigation between Netlist and Samsung remains active, the specific procedural posture for case 24-1521 is on appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), originating from an unpatentability determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed by Samsung and Micron. As of December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance in this appeal, finding no reversible error in the PTAB's decision that U.S. Patent No. 10,860,506 is unpatentable, thus concluding this specific appeal with an outcome unfavorable to Netlist. This case is notable as part of an extensive intellectual property conflict between Netlist and Samsung, which also involves related litigation against other major memory manufacturers like Micron and Google. The broader dispute stems from the termination of a 2015 joint development and license agreement between Netlist and Samsung due to alleged breaches by Samsung. Netlist has previously secured significant jury verdicts against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, totaling over $420 million across multiple patents. The cancellation of the '506 patent in this appeal impacts Netlist's overall patent portfolio and its leverage in ongoing and future licensing negotiations within the highly competitive memory industry.

The patent infringement litigation between Netlist Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. involves a complex history across both district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with multiple appeals to the Federal Circuit. This summary focuses on the litigation related to U.S. Patent No. 10,860,506 (the '506 patent) and a significant infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. District Court Patent Infringement Litigation (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:21-cv-00463)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2021): Netlist Inc. filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) on December 20, 2021. The initial complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,860,506, 10,949,339, and 11,016,918. Netlist later amended its complaint to include infringement claims for U.S. Patent Nos. 11,232,054, 8,787,060, and 9,318,160.
• Claim Construction (Markman) (2022): A Claim Construction Order was issued in the Eastern District of Texas case on December 14, 2022.
• Trial Events & Verdict (2023): A jury trial commenced on April 14, 2023. On April 21, 2023, the jury returned a unanimous verdict. The jury found that Samsung infringed at least one asserted claim of each of the presented patents, that this infringement was willful, and that none of the asserted claims were invalid. The jury awarded Netlist a composite reasonable royalty of $303,150,000.00 for Samsung's infringement across all asserted patents.
• Bench Trial & Final Judgment (2023): Following the jury verdict, the court conducted a separate bench trial on May 30, 2023, concerning Samsung's equitable defenses (prosecution laches, equitable estoppel, and unclean hands). On August 11, 2023, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, determining that Samsung had not proven any of its equitable defenses. Final judgment was entered on August 11, 2023, in favor of Netlist, affirming the jury's verdict and the damages award.
• Appeal of District Court Judgment (2024 - Active): Samsung filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 2024-2203) on August 9, 2024, challenging the district court's judgment. Samsung's motion to stay this appeal was denied by the Federal Circuit on February 18, 2025, without prejudice. The appeal remains pending.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 10,860,506 (the '506 Patent)

• Samsung IPR Petition (2022): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the '506 patent (Case No. IPR2022-00711) on March 22, 2022.
• Micron IPR Petition (2022): Micron Technology, Inc. also filed a Petition for IPR of the '506 patent (Case No. IPR2023-00205) on November 18, 2022.
• PTAB Final Written Decision (2023): On October 17, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision in both IPRs (IPR2022-00711 and IPR2023-00205), finding all challenged claims of the '506 patent unpatentable. This decision occurred after the district court's final judgment in the infringement case.

3. Federal Circuit Appeal of PTAB Decision (CAFC Case No. 24-1521)

• Filing (2024): Netlist Inc. appealed the PTAB's unpatentability determination for the '506 patent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1521). The appeal was filed on February 27, 2024. The respondents in the appeal included Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and three Micron entities (Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC).
• Outcome (2025): The Federal Circuit closed Netlist's appeal on December 9, 2025. A per curiam panel of Circuit Judges Lourie, Prost, and Cunningham affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability ruling, finding no reversible error. The outcome was recorded as "Unpatentable," meaning U.S. Patent No. 10,860,506 was cancelled and Netlist retains no enforceable rights under it against Samsung, Micron, or any third party.

Effect of Parallel PTAB IPRs on Litigation:
The PTAB's finding that the '506 patent is unpatentable, subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit in case 24-1521, significantly impacts the ongoing appeal of the district court's infringement judgment (CAFC Case No. 24-2203). Since the '506 patent was one of the patents included in the $303 million damages award in the Eastern District of Texas, Samsung is likely to argue for the invalidation or reduction of the damages awarded in the district court case related to this now-unpatentable patent during the active Federal Circuit appeal 24-2203.

I'll search for coverage from multiple angles to verify the listed articles and find others.

Press coverage

Coverage of the 24-1521 appeal itself is thin; the coverage clusters around the settlement that mooted it. The Federal Circuit's December 9, 2025 disposition of Netlist v. Samsung (No. 24-1521) was a one-line Rule 36 affirmance of the Board's holding that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,860,506 are unpatentable, issued without a written opinion — see the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 judgment and the CourtListener opinion entry. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, or trade-press article devoted to the '506 outcome; because the affirmance was nonprecedential and Rule 36, it appears to have gone unreported as a standalone story. The press instead treated the '506 loss as one strand in a years-long campaign — a framing the record supports, since the docket and PTAB papers show the Board's October 17, 2023 final written decision in IPR2022-00711 (joined with Micron's IPR2023-00205) wiping out all twenty claims.

The dominant story is the August 2026 Samsung settlement, which presses reported as ending the war — and which effectively supersedes the 24-1521 outcome. Digitimes reported on 2026-08-06 that Samsung "will pay Netlist up to US$897 million in gross licensing fees over five years under a series of agreements that settle years of litigation." BusinessKorea put the same deal at "approximately 1.3 trillion won (US$1 billion)," breaking it into a $239 million upfront fee plus up to $32.9 million quarterly for 20 quarters through Q2 2031, and reported that the parties "will drop all currently pending legal lawsuits and mutually release each other from related claims." Nasdaq carried the company's own framing from the earnings call: CFO Gail Sasaki described a $200 million upfront fee net of Korean withholding tax ($239 million gross) and up to $750 million in aggregate net license fees ($897 million gross), plus a supply agreement for up to $300 million of DRAM/NAND annually ($1.5 billion over five years) and Samsung's purchase of 10 million Netlist shares. Nasdaq also quoted Netlist VP of IP strategy Rich Kim saying the deal lets Netlist "focus [its] full attention on other infringing parties," and CEO Chuck Hong calling it "one of the most significant patent licensing arrangements in the memory industry." Sterne Kessler — Netlist's ITC counsel — confirmed on 2026-08-10 that the settlement resolved the ITC and E.D. Tex. actions but that "Netlist will continue defending its patents in connection with CAFC appeals, IPR proceedings and district court actions involving third parties," which is consistent with Samsung exiting the parallel '339 appeal while Micron carried on.

Accounts diverge on the headline number, its certainty, and what it means. The "$897 million" figure is universally reported as a ceiling, not a payment: AInvest argued on 2026-10-05 that "the number behind the headline is a ceiling, not a check," noting the quarterly royalties are "up to," carry adjustment and refund rights, and that at ~$2.1 billion market cap the entire five-year maximum is only ~42% of the valuation — while flagging that the 10-million-share purchase at $1 million total (roughly a dime a share against a ~$5.66 market price) is "symbolic." IAM framed it more expansively, reporting that the cross-licence covers Netlist's full portfolio, "extends to Samsung memory customers," and "will serve as the benchmark for future Netlist licences" — a characterization that goes beyond anything in the court record. Market reaction was widely reported: Mitrade/TradingKey said NLST "surged over 60% at one point during the day and closed up 58.32%, marking the largest single-day gain since the company's listing," while Yahoo Finance/Simply Wall St put the move at 65.8%. There is also a factual discrepancy worth flagging: BusinessKorea and Chosun Biz refer to E.D. Tex. verdicts of "$303 million and $118 million" in "April last year and in November this year," which does not match the April 2023 $303.15 million verdict described in the earlier sections; the $118 million figure is not something I could tie to a docketed judgment.

Two other threads of coverage matter, but one of the listed articles is about a different patent. IPWatchdog published a lengthy analysis on 2026-09-02 of the Federal Circuit's precedential affirmance in Netlist v. Micron (No. 2024-1707) — but that case concerns U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339, not the '506 patent, and the article expressly notes that "Samsung later settled with Netlist and withdrew from the appeal, and Micron continued as the sole appellee." It is therefore not coverage of 24-1521, contrary to how it was indexed for this case; I flag that as a metadata mismatch. Separately, IPWatchdog reported on 2026-03-16 on Netlist's requests for Director Review arguing Samsung omitted Samsung Electronics America as a real party in interest in IPR/PGR petitions on the '087 and '731 patents, tying the argument to Director Squires's Aylo Freesites decision and the pending ITC Section 337 investigation. And the Micron resolution generated its own wave: Blocks & Files reported on 2026-10-08 a $600 million Micron licence and calculated that Netlist has now "won IP disputes against Micron, Samsung and SK hynix … gaining fees valued at $1.54 billion," while the Orange County Business Journal aggregated the Samsung and Micron deals at "about $1.5 billion" and repeated Hong's line that the deals "establish an important industry benchmark for the value of Netlist's intellectual property."

Verification caveat: of the sources supplied in the news index, I was able to locate and read the IPWatchdog pieces (Sept. 2 and Mar. 16, 2026) and confirm the Digitimes Aug. 6, 2026 settlement headline, but I could not retrieve the Biztoc items of 2026-08-07 and 2026-08-15, the Yahoo Entertainment piece of 2026-07-16 ("US probes Samsung…"), the Digitimes ITC piece of 2026-01-05, or the Crypto Briefing Micron import-ban story of 2026-09-29, so I have not characterized their contents.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Netlist is further estopped by IPR2022- 00711 (filed by Samsung), which invalidated all claims of the related '506 patent, prima...
• Netlist v. Samsung Electronics | Patent Lawsuit 24-1521 - Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• 2. December 2021: Netlist Sues Samsung on the ’506 Patent in EDTX
• Netlist believes that its damages for Samsung's infringement may accrue on a worldwide basis, including worldwide manufacturing,...

• Exhibit #	Description
  1046	U

• Ex. 1001 | IPR2022-00711 | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Netlist Inc | Ex Parte
• Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. – CourtListener.com - 6 See Netlist, Inc
• Netlist’s disclaimer arguments are applicable to the ’506 patent
• Netlist Lands Samsung Alliance Worth Up to $750M in Patent Fees
• Sterne Kessler Client Netlist Negotiates Five-Year Patent Alliance With Samsung - Washington, D
• Samsung Ends Six-Year Patent Fight With Netlist - Samsung Ends Six-Year Patent Fight With Netlist

Netlist Inc. is represented by counsel from Irell & Manella LLP and Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC in this appeal (CAFC Case No. 24-1521).

Here are the details of the identified counsel:

Irell & Manella LLP

• Jason Sheasby - Lead Counsel. Partner at Irell & Manella LLP, based in Los Angeles, California. Sheasby is a prominent intellectual property attorney, recognized for securing significant verdicts for Netlist against Samsung, including a $303.15 million jury verdict involving five computer memory technology patents, and a $445 million verdict against Micron. He also played a key role in a separate trial where Netlist proved Samsung's material breach of a joint development and license agreement.
• Richard Crudo - Counsel. His specific role in this appeal is not detailed in the available search results, but he is listed as counsel for Netlist.
• Philip J. Warrick - Counsel. His specific role in this appeal is not detailed in the available search results, but he is listed as counsel for Netlist.

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC

• William Milliken - Counsel. He argued for Netlist (appellee) in a related Federal Circuit appeal (Samsung Electronics Co. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 23-2133). Sterne Kessler frequently represents Netlist in PTAB proceedings and related appeals.

I'll research the counsel of record for the respondents/defendants in this Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me pull the full docket and the judgment text for the complete counsel list.

Now let me verify the Micron appellee counsel and check for any appearances/withdrawals on the docket.

Counsel of Record — Defendants/Appellees, Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2024-1521 (Fed. Cir.)

Important structural point first: the appellees in 24-1521 are two distinct interest groups, because the appeal arises from two separate IPRs that the Board decided together (IPR2022-00711, filed by Samsung; IPR2023-00205, filed by Micron). The official caption names Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and the three Micron entities — Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC — as appellees. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. are not parties to this appeal, so their district-court counsel (Fish & Richardson; Covington & Burling; Gillam & Smith) do not appear here. That distinction matters because Fish & Richardson's Ruffin B. Cordell is the Samsung appellate name on the E.D. Tex. appeal (Case No. 24-2203/24-2404 line), not on 24-1521.

The authoritative roster is the panel's Rule 36 judgment (Doc. #53, Dec. 9, 2025), which lists only counsel who remained on the papers at decision:
CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, 24-1521 (Dec. 9, 2025) | CourtListener Docket No. 69849092 | CourtListener opinion text

---

A. Counsel for Appellee Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — Baker Botts L.L.P.

B. Counsel for Appellees Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC — Winston & Strawn LLP

---

Cross-reference / corrections to the earlier sections

1. Plaintiff-side roster is slightly understated. The 24-1521 judgment shows Netlist was represented by Richard Crudo (argued), Richard M. Bemben, John Hylton, and William Milliken (Sterne Kessler, Washington, D.C.), plus Jonathan M. Lindsay (Irell & Manella, Newport Beach) and Jason Sheasby and Hong Annita Zhong (Irell, Los Angeles). The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section omitted Bemben, Hylton, and Zhong for this appeal. It also listed Philip J. Warrick, who does appear on Irell's Netlist briefs (e.g., the 24-2240/24-2203 line) but is not on the 24-1521 judgment — I could not source a Warrick appearance in 24-1521.
2. Firm attributions across cases should not be blended. Samsung's district-court and IPR-originating appeals use different firms than this appeal: Fish & Richardson (Cordell, Degnan, McKeon, Ballanco, Christoff) on the E.D. Tex. judgment appeal; Covington & Burling (Nester, Swanson, Fowler, Ahn) and Gillam & Smith (Melissa Richards Smith et al.) listed as expected/appearing counsel in that other appeal; O'Melveny & Myers for Samsung in the C.D. Cal. contract case. None of these firms appears in 24-1521, where Samsung is represented exclusively by Baker Botts.
3. No in-house counsel or local counsel of record. The Federal Circuit does not require local counsel, and neither the judgment nor the docket entries surfaced show any Samsung or Micron in-house attorney entering an appearance in this appeal. Samsung's in-house involvement (if any) is not of record here.
4. Posture caution. Consistent with the case record, this appeal was terminated by the Rule 36 affirmance on Dec. 9, 2025; per the press coverage summarized earlier, Samsung and Netlist later settled and mutually released all claims in August 2026. Any attempt to contact "current" 24-1521 counsel should account for that — the appearances above are as of the December 2025 mandate.

Sourcing caveats

• The names, firms, and offices above are drawn directly from the Rule 36 judgment text and the CourtListener docket/party page for 24-1521, cross-checked against the Patexia document index for the case (which shows Doc. #2, Mar. 12, 2024 entry of appearance for Samsung; Doc. #16, Mar. 25, 2024 corrected entry for Micron).
• Titles ("Partner," "principal attorney") are sourced only where the record states them (e.g., Hawes's declaration describing himself as "a Partner in the law firm of Baker Botts L.L.P." and principal attorney on the appellee brief in the related appeal). I have not independently verified partnership status for Ding, Chandler, Williams, or Rueckheim.
• Registration/bar numbers for Williams (50,822), Chandler (50,319) and Rueckheim (TX 24081129) come from USPTO PTAB filings and an E.D. Tex. notice of appearance in related matters, not from the 24-1521 docket itself.
• I could not retrieve a full PACER docket sheet for 24-1521 (CourtListener's RECAP-derived entries were the closest available); if you need the definitive appearance-by-appearance history — including whether a withdrawal entry exists for John Gaustad — that requires a direct PACER pull of the 52-entry docket.