Litigation

Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Stayed

2:25-cv-00557

Filed
2025-05-19

Patents at issue (1)

12308087PTAB institution denied

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

Patent infringement case filed by Netlist against Samsung entities. On March 6, 2026, the court ordered a stay in the case.

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., an Irvine, California-based operating company specializing in the design and manufacture of high-performance solid-state drives (SSDs) and modular memory subsystems for enterprise and cloud computing customers. The defendants are multinational electronics giant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., along with its American subsidiaries [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. Samsung is a leading global producer of electronic components, including dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) and NAND flash memory chips. Netlist accuses Samsung of infringing its patent through the sale of High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) products, specifically HBM2, HBM2E, HBM3, HBM3E, and HBM4, which are critical for high-performance computing systems such as data centers.

The sole patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087 (the "'087 patent"), which generally describes an innovative memory package design featuring stacked array dies and reduced driver load, enhancing high-bandwidth memory operations while mitigating load issues to maintain optimal performance in servers. This patent is particularly relevant to current and future artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The case was filed on May 19, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. A related case brought by Netlist against Micron Technology, Inc. (2:25-cv-00558) was consolidated with this lead case on June 27, 2025. The court ordered a stay in the case on March 6, 2026.

This litigation is notable as part of a protracted and high-stakes legal battle between Netlist and Samsung over memory technologies. The Eastern District of Texas remains a popular, albeit more challenging, venue for patent plaintiffs due to its historical reputation for fast trials and patentee-friendly juries and procedures, despite recent Supreme Court rulings on venue. The case also has broader industry implications, particularly concerning high-bandwidth memory, a rapidly expanding market segment driven by AI development, with analysts projecting billions in annual HBM revenues for Samsung. Furthermore, Netlist has pursued parallel enforcement actions, including an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro for infringement of the '087 patent and others. This ongoing dispute has previously resulted in substantial jury verdicts awarding Netlist hundreds of millions of dollars against Samsung for patent infringement and breach of a joint development agreement.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

The patent infringement litigation Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00557) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is currently stayed. The case primarily involves U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087 (the "'087 patent"), and also U.S. Patent No. 10,025,731 (the "'731 patent") asserted in later pleadings.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

  • 2025-05-19 – Complaint Filing: Netlist, Inc. filed its initial complaint in the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00557) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087. On the same day, Netlist also filed a separate complaint against Micron Technology, Inc. and related entities (2:25-cv-00558), asserting the same '087 patent.
  • 2025-05-20 – Declaratory Judgment Actions by Samsung and Micron: Samsung initiated a declaratory judgment action against Netlist in the District of Delaware (1:25-cv-00626), seeking a declaration of non-infringement of the '087 patent. Micron also filed a similar declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware (1:25-cv-00629) concerning the '087 patent.
  • 2025-06-27 – Case Consolidation: The Eastern District of Texas consolidated the Netlist v. Micron case (2:25-cv-00558) into the lead case against Samsung (2:25-cv-00557).
  • 2025-07-08 – First Amended Complaint: Netlist filed a First Amended Complaint against Samsung and added Avnet, Inc. as a defendant.
  • 2025-07-22 – Micron's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue: Micron filed a motion to dismiss Netlist's First Amended Complaint for improper venue (Dkt. No. 28) within the consolidated case.
  • 2025-09-30 – ITC Complaint Filed: Netlist filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro, alleging infringement of six patents, including the '087 and '731 patents. Netlist sought exclusion and cease and desist orders.
  • 2025-10-09 – Second Amended Complaint: Netlist filed a Second Amended Complaint against Samsung and Avnet, asserting infringement of both the '087 and '731 patents.
  • 2025-11-24 – Samsung's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (SSI/SEA) and PTAB Filings Mentioned: A document in the district court case from this date indicates Samsung's arguments for dismissal of claims against Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (SSI) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA) for improper venue. This document also mentions parallel PTAB proceedings, specifically IPR2025-01431 and PGR2025-00071, challenging the '087 patent.
  • 2025-12-03 – PGR Filing: Samsung filed a reply in its Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00071) challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087.
  • 2026-03-06 – Order Granting Dismissal/Transfer for Micron and Case Stay: The court granted Micron's motion to dismiss the claims against it for improper venue and transferred the member case (2:25-cv-00558) to the District of Delaware. The court found that Netlist failed to establish a regular and established place of business for Micron in the Eastern District of Texas. On the same date, the lead case (2:25-cv-00557) against Samsung was stayed by agreement of the parties.

Current Posture:
The case is currently stayed in the Eastern District of Texas. The parallel PTAB proceedings, including PGR2025-00071 and IPR2025-01402, initiated by Samsung against the '087 patent, are ongoing, with disputes regarding the identification of real parties in interest. Additionally, an ITC investigation based on Netlist's complaint against Samsung (and others) regarding the '087 and '731 patents is also in progress. The stay in the district court case is likely in anticipation of the outcomes of these related proceedings.

In the news

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

I'll start by searching for the specific articles listed and the case generally.

Key development: a settlement apparently resolved this case in August 2026. Let me verify the specific listed articles and related rulings.

Press coverage of Netlist v. Samsung (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00557)

The settlement that ended this case dominates coverage — and it post-dates the "stayed" status in the case metadata. On August 5–6, 2026, Reuters reported that Netlist "struck a five-year deal to license its memory chip patents to Samsung Electronics… ending years of legal disputes," under which Samsung gets access to Netlist's portfolio "including its server dual in-line memory module and high-bandwidth memory technologies," receives DRAM and NAND supply, buys 10 million Netlist shares, and the parties "settle and mutually release all pending legal actions." Reuters framed the timing as significant because the deal came "weeks after U.S. trade regulators launched an investigation into Samsung memory chips following a complaint by Netlist," a probe Reuters said "covers products sold by Google, Nvidia, Broadcom and Super Micro Computer that use Samsung memory chips." Korean outlets carried the same terms with the same numbers: Yonhap and The Korea Times quoted CEO C.K. Hong ("These strategic agreements… validate the value of Netlist's intellectual property") and recited the earlier Texas verdicts of "$303 million in 2023 and $118 million in 2024." Nasdaq, drawing on Netlist's earnings call transcript, supplied the granular economics: a $239 million gross upfront fee ($200 million net of Korean withholding), "20 recurring quarterly license fees of up to $27.5 million net of tax, or $32.9 million gross," aggregate net fees "up to $750 million, or gross license revenue of up to $897 million," and a supply agreement worth "up to $300 million… annually and up to $1.5 billion over the five-year period."

Outlets disagree on the headline number, and several reports characterize the deal as more than a litigation truce. The $897 million figure is a gross maximum; BusinessKorea rounded it to "approximately 1.3 trillion won (US$1 billion)" while noting the analyst consensus was "$897 million (about 1.278 trillion won)" — a won/dollar conversion gap that also shows up in other Seoul-published accounts. Sterne Kessler, Netlist's lead ITC counsel, described "as much as $898 million" and confirmed the deal "settled pending litigation matters, including actions before the U.S. ITC and in the Eastern District of Texas," while preserving Netlist's appeals and third-party actions; deal counsel Fenwick confirmed the equity term was "10 million shares of Netlist common stock for $1 million, with a five-year lock-up." IAM called it a "[l]andmark cross-licence agreement [that] covers Netlist's full patent portfolio, extends to Samsung memory customers and will serve as the benchmark for future Netlist licences" — a forward-looking analytical claim not found in the court record. Netlist's own VP of IP strategy, Rich Kim, framed the release as reallocation of resources: "These agreements will allow Netlist to now focus its full attention on other infringing parties" (Nasdaq).

Analyst and market reaction went well beyond the docket. TradingKey, via Mitrade, reported 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," and noted Netlist's H1 2026 IP legal fees of $25.727 million against a $188.6 million FY2025 revenue base. AInvest pushed back on the "$897 million" framing on 2026-10-05, arguing the figure "is a ceiling, not a check," that the quarterly royalties are "'up to'" with "adjustments and Samsung's refund rights," and that Samsung's 10-million-share purchase at "$1 million total — that is a dime a share, against a market that pays about $5.66" is "a symbolic purchase." AInvest also reported that even a fully realized maximum would be "less than half the roughly $2.1 billion the market is currently paying for the company," and that "Netlist's core business remains unprofitable, relying on low-margin DRAM resales during shortages." None of this valuation commentary appears in any filing. Note also that the items you listed from Biztoc (2026-08-07 and 2026-08-15) and Digitimes (2026-08-06) appear to be aggregations/rewrites of the same August 5–6 wire and press-release material; I was able to verify the underlying facts through Reuters, Yonhap, Korea Times, BusinessKorea, and Netlist's own release, but not those specific pages.

The surrounding enforcement war — and Netlist's PTAB losses — drew separate coverage. The pre-settlement PTAB fight over the '087 patent is documented in papers reproduced by IPWatchdog, where Samsung's response to Netlist's Request for Director Review in PGR2025-00071 (instituted February 18, 2026) argues Netlist waived Fintiv arguments about Google and Super Micro and that the Director "has already considered, and repeatedly rejected, Netlist's argument" regarding real parties in interest — matching the dispute your [March 16, 2026 IPWatchdog] item describes. On the merits, IPWatchdog reported on 2026-09-02 that the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. affirming a PTAB finding that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 were obvious, and noted that "Samsung later settled with Netlist and withdrew from the appeal, and Micron continued as the sole appellee" — a direct litigation consequence of the August deal. IP Case Updates and VitalLaw covered the same September 2 opinion (No. 2024-1707). Netlist's post-settlement offensive is against Micron: Reuters (Blake Brittain, 2026-09-29) reported a new ITC complaint, filed under seal September 25, seeking to bar imports of Micron DRAM and Google, Nvidia and Broadcom "graphics processing units, servers and other products," asserting "two of its patents covering 'high bandwidth memory' technology," and recited a "$445 million" Micron verdict plus "another ITC complaint against Micron in August" (instituted as Inv. No. 337-TA-1523, per igorsLAB). The Crypto Briefing piece on your list (2026-09-29) tracks this

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

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

In the patent infringement case Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00557) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys represent the plaintiff, Netlist, Inc.:

  • Jason G. Sheasby

    • Role: Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
    • Experience: Mr. Sheasby is an experienced trial attorney focusing on complex litigation, patents, trade secrets, antitrust, and regulatory compliance. He has a notable track record of securing significant jury verdicts for Netlist against Samsung, including a $303.15 million verdict in 2023 for willful infringement of five computer memory technology patents in the Eastern District of Texas and co-led a team that successfully proved a breach of contract by Samsung resulting in $421 million in patent infringement damages in 2025. He has also achieved major verdicts for other clients, such as over $500 million for USAA against Wells Fargo and PNC Bank for remote deposit technology patents, and a $300 million verdict for PanOptis against Apple concerning LTE standard-essential patents, both in the Eastern District of Texas.

  • Andrew J. Strabone

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
    • Experience: Andrew Strabone was part of the team that secured a $218.45 million jury verdict for USAA in a patent infringement suit against PNC Bank.

  • Blair A. Silver

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP
    • Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for Blair A. Silver in notable past cases is not immediately detailed in the provided search results.

  • Jennifer Leigh Truelove

    • Role: Local Counsel
    • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Marshall, TX
    • Experience: Jennifer Truelove is associated with McKool Smith, a firm well-known for patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. A specific one-line note on her relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases is not detailed in the provided search results.

  • Andrew Henderson

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP
    • Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for Andrew Henderson in notable past cases is not immediately detailed in the provided search results.

  • Michael William Tezyan

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP
    • Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for Michael William Tezyan in notable past cases is not immediately detailed in the provided search results.

Defendant representatives

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

Here is the identified counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00557):

In-House Counsel:

  • Matthew Bathon

    • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, In-House
    • Firm: Samsung Electronics
    • Office Location: Unknown (likely US-based given his role coordinating district court dockets)
    • Experience Note: Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and has extensive experience litigating Section 337 investigations and IP disputes in district courts across various technologies, including semiconductors, LED, and GPS.

  • Phillip Lee

    • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, In-House
    • Firm: Samsung Electronics US IP Center (Samsung Research America, Inc.)
    • Office Location: Mountain View, CA
    • Experience Note: Veteran litigator with substantive experience in patent litigation, patent prosecution, and licensing, having appeared before federal district courts, the Patent Trial Appeal Board, the International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Outside Counsel:

  • Alan Rabinowitz

    • Role: Attorney (Pro Hac Vice)
    • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
    • Office Location: Washington, D.C. (Covington & Burling has a large patent litigation practice there)
    • Experience Note: Appears on behalf of all Samsung defendant entities. Covington & Burling's patent litigation practice has litigated over 700 patent cases across diverse technologies and venues, including the Eastern District of Texas.

  • Alice Juwon Ahn

    • Role: Attorney
    • Firm: WilmerHale (as of September 2025, previously Covington & Burling LLP)
    • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Experience Note: A leading intellectual property litigator with significant expertise in computer science, electrical engineering, and complex IP matters, including patent litigation and Section 337 investigations.

  • Thomas Edward Garten

    • Role: Attorney
    • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
    • Office Location: Palo Alto, CA
    • Experience Note: Represents global technology companies in complex patent infringement and trade secret disputes in federal courts and Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission, with over 15 years of experience.

  • Brian R. Nester

    • Role: Partner
    • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
    • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
    • Experience Note: First-chair trial litigator with extensive patent and trade secret litigation experience before the ITC and federal district courts, having tried over 20 matters to conclusion and represented major technology clients including Samsung.

  • Gregory Blake Thompson

    • Role: Attorney (likely local counsel)
    • Firm: Mann, Tindel, Thompson
    • Office Location: Nacogdoches, TX (common for local counsel in Eastern District of Texas cases)
    • Experience Note: Appears as counsel of record for Samsung.

  • Jared B. Bobrow

    • Role: Partner, Co-Leader of Global IP Practice
    • Firm: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
    • Office Location: Silicon Valley (Menlo Park), CA
    • Experience Note: Focuses on litigating patent disputes nationwide in district courts and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, with nearly 30 years of experience in semiconductor, communications, cloud computing, and medical device industries.

  • Jeremy Jason Lang

    • Role: Partner
    • Firm: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
    • Office Location: Menlo Park, CA
    • Experience Note: Member of the Patent Litigation practice, experienced in litigating cases before district courts, state courts, and the International Trade Commission, focusing on semiconductor devices, communication technologies, and software applications.

  • Sarah Kate Mullins

    • Role: Associate
    • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
    • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Experience Note: Handles patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright disputes, with a practice focused on federal litigation for technology companies.

  • Ryuk Park

    • Role: Counsel (as of March 2026, previously at Winston & Strawn)
    • Firm: King & Spalding (as of 2026, previously Winston & Strawn LLP)
    • Office Location: San Francisco, CA (King & Spalding)
    • Experience Note: Seasoned intellectual property lawyer with experience counseling clients in high-tech disputes, leveraging his background as a semiconductor circuit engineer and in-house counsel for a video game company. Advises on patent disputes involving semiconductors, computer architecture, video processing, telecommunications, and consumer electronics.

  • Michael Robert Rueckheim

    • Role: Partner (as of March 2026, previously at Winston & Strawn)
    • Firm: King & Spalding (as of March 2026, previously Winston & Strawn LLP)
    • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Experience Note: Patent litigator who guides leading technology companies through complex patent matters, including district court litigation, PTAB proceedings, and ITC hearings, with a focus on standards-based issues concerning semiconductor, memory, and telecom technologies. Prior to law, he was a semiconductor process technician.