Litigation

Netlist Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Active litigation

24-1521

Patents at issue (1)

10860506PTAB: final decision

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

This is an active patent litigation case on appeal at the Federal Circuit, involving Netlist Inc as the plaintiff and [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) as a defendant.

Case overview & background

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

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., 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.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

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.

In the news

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

Press coverage summary

The most heavily covered development in this litigation saga came on August 5–6, 2026, when Netlist and Samsung announced a five-year strategic settlement. Reuters reported on 2026-08-05 that Netlist agreed to license its memory-chip patents to Samsung — including server DIMM and HBM technologies — in exchange for access to Samsung DRAM and NAND supply, with all pending litigation settled and mutually released, and Samsung purchasing 10 million Netlist shares. Reuters tied the deal to the prior E.D. Tex. verdicts of $303 million (2023) and $118 million (2024) and noted it came weeks after U.S. trade regulators opened an ITC investigation into Samsung memory chips used in products sold by Google, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Super Micro Computer. BusinessKorea reported on 2026-08-06 that the deal ends a six-year dispute tracing to the 2015 joint development/license agreement that Netlist terminated in 2020, with Samsung paying a $239 million upfront fee plus up to $32.9 million quarterly (~1.3 trillion won/~US$1 billion total) while Netlist gained rights to buy up to $300 million/year of memory products ($1.5 billion over five years).

Financial outlets drilled into the economics: Nasdaq reported that gross license revenue could reach $897 million but only ~$750 million net of Korean withholding taxes, citing CFO Gail Sasaki (upfront $200 million net/$239 million gross, then 20 quarterly payments up to $27.5 million net/$32.9 million gross), and quoted CEO Chuck Hong calling it "one of the most significant patent licensing arrangements in the memory industry" and IP chief Rich Kim saying Netlist can now "focus its full attention on other infringing parties." Digitimes framed the agreement as settling the dispute and renewing commercial partnership for server memory, HBM supply, and technology cooperation. Netlist's own counsel, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (Business Wire), put the licensing fees at "as much as $898 million" and emphasized the settlement covered the ITC and E.D. Tex. actions while Netlist continues defending its patents against third parties. Market coverage by TradingKey via Mitrade noted NLST closed up 58.32% — its largest single-day gain since listing — and offered the analyst/industry take that the nearly $900 million deal validates Netlist's HBM/DDR5 patents and creates a benchmark likely to pressure Micron, which is still appealing a $445 million verdict, into settling.

The other major wave of coverage concerns the September 2, 2026 Federal Circuit rulings, which are closely related to — but distinct from — the '506 patent appeal in case 24-1521 (which the case record shows was affirmed per curiam on December 9, 2025). IPWatchdog reported on 2026-09-02 that the Federal Circuit issued a precedential affirmance in Netlist v. Micron upholding the PTAB's obviousness finding against all challenged claims of Netlist's '339 patent, and noted that Samsung — which originally filed the IPR before Micron was joined — "later settled with Netlist and withdrew from the appeal," leaving Micron as the sole appellee. The Fed Circuit Blog recorded that same day the court issued four PTAB opinions — one precedential and three nonprecedential, three involving Netlist — and Yahoo Finance reported the appeals court left in place rulings invalidating five Netlist memory patents that Samsung had first challenged and Micron continued after Samsung settled, sending NLST down 22% (its worst day in 10 months) while Roth Capital dismissed the news as "backward-looking" because Netlist holds newer related patents.

Coverage of the ongoing PTAB front includes IPWatchdog's March 16, 2026 piece, reporting that Netlist sought Director Review of institution of Samsung IPR/PGR challenges to its '087 and '731 patents on the theory Samsung failed to name Samsung Electronics America as a real party in interest (citing the USPTO's Aylo Freesites sua sponte dismissal), while Samsung countered that SEA is a "mere purchaser" not accused of infringement and that Netlist had waived RPI arguments across 15 petitions over four years. A PatSnap case profile of the specific '506 appeal (24-1521) supplies secondary legal analysis, quoting the PACER judgment — "PER CURIAM (LOURIE, PROST, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED" — and noting the cancellation removes the patent as a litigation threat over timing-controlled data buffering while Netlist retains related family patents.

Accounts differ mainly on characterization and numbers around the settlement: Sterne Kessler rounds the licensing value to "$898 million" while Digitimes, Reuters, and the SEC-derived figures used by Nasdaq put the gross ceiling at $897 million; BusinessKorea converts that to roughly 1.3 trillion won ("US$1 billion") and characterizes the share purchase as costing $1 million for 10 million shares with no mention of a purchase-price premium. Coverage also goes beyond the court record with market analysis: TradingKey/Mitrade notes Netlist's first-half 2026 IP legal fees of $25.7 million and tight cash position, and argues the near-pure-profit licensing revenue will "fundamentally improve Netlist's financial structure," while Yahoo Finance/Roth Capital dismisses the September 2026 patent losses as backward-looking. One caution: the listed IPWatchdog September 2 article and the September 2026 stock coverage concern the '339, '918, '054, '060, and '160 patents in companion Netlist–Micron appeals — they confirm Samsung's settlement and withdrawal from those fights but do not themselves report on the '506 patent judgment in case 24-1521, which was affirmed months earlier; the press coverage should not be read as reporting a September 2026 decision in 24-1521 itself.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

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

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.

Defendant representatives

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

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Netlist Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 24-1521 CAFC counsel", "Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. CAFC 24-1521 counsel", "Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. patent litigation counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Federal Circuit case 24-1521. I need to identify the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for these attorneys. I will use web search to look for this information, specifically focusing on the CAFC docket for case 24-1521, firm websites, and legal news sources.Based on the available information, the following counsel are identified as representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in its patent litigation, including matters before the Federal Circuit:

In-House Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.:

  • Matthew Bathon

    • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
    • Firm: Samsung Electronics
    • Office Location: Not specified, but his responsibilities include coordinating Samsung's ITC and district court dockets, and he regularly speaks on IP issues relevant to the ITC.
    • Relevant Experience: Prior to joining Samsung, Mr. Bathon was a partner at Steptoe LLP, focusing on Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and IP disputes in district courts across various technologies including semiconductors, telecommunications, and computer architecture. He also served as a senior investigative attorney in the ITC's Office of Unfair Import Investigations.

  • Tim Jezek

    • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
    • Firm: Samsung Electronics America
    • Office Location: Not specified.
    • Relevant Experience: Mr. Jezek focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues, possessing over two decades of litigation and intellectual property counseling experience in both in-house and law firm settings. He has participated in PTAB Masters and Patent Litigation Masters events.

  • Phillip Lee

    • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
    • Firm: Samsung Electronics US IP Center
    • Office Location: Not specified, but he is licensed in California, New York, and Washington D.C.
    • Relevant Experience: Mr. Lee is a veteran litigator with extensive experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing. He has appeared before federal district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He manages patent case dockets with outside counsel, negotiates settlements and licenses, and advises on IP provisions in commercial agreements.

Outside Counsel:

While Samsung has retained outside counsel for Federal Circuit appeals in related cases against Netlist (e.g., Baker Botts LLP in Case No. 23-2133), the specific outside counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in case 24-1521 could not be definitively identified from the provided search results. The dockets and opinions reviewed did not explicitly list the external legal team for this particular appeal.