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

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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), along with its American subsidiaries Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 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.

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 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.

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.