Netlist Inc. v. Samsung et al.

I'll verify the case facts, parties, patent, and procedural posture against public sources before drafting.

Key facts are diverging from the prior sections. Let me verify the PTAB proceedings, the stay/transfer rulings, and the reported 2026 settlements.

Now let me verify the docket specifics (filing date, judge, counsel) and the correct PTAB proceeding numbers, since the prior sections' IPR citation looks suspect.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Netlist, Inc. is not a classic NPE: it is an Irvine, California memory-technology company (OTCQB: NLST) that designs and sells memory modules and related products and employs roughly a decade of patent enforcement as a parallel revenue line. Its CEO, C.K. Hong, and CFO, Gail Sasaki, publicly frame the portfolio — server DIMM and HBM technologies — as licensing assets for the AI-memory build-out. On the defense side, the case named the three Samsung entities (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.); Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.), the three Micron entities (Micron Technology, Inc.; Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.; Micron Technology Texas LLC), and Avnet, Inc., a distributor named to capture domestic sales of the accused modules. Netlist is represented by Irell & Manella (Jason Sheasby leading, per Netlist's own announcement) with Sterne Kessler handling the ITC track; Samsung is defended by Kirkland & Ellis, Micron by Weil, Gotshal & Manges, with Gillam & Smith as EDTX local counsel. (Netlist press release, July 29, 2025; Sterne Kessler, Aug. 10, 2026)

The patent and accused technology. The sole patent in this action is U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, "Memory with On-Module Power Management," which issued July 29, 2025 from Application No. 17/582,797 (filed Jan. 24, 2022) and claims priority to June 1, 2007; it expires June 2, 2028. In one line: a DIMM that puts voltage regulation/power management on the module and organizes the DRAM into two independently operable groups of DDR SDRAM devices (a ≥40-data-line group plus a ≥32-line group, totaling ≥72 data conduits), which maps onto DDR5's two-subchannel architecture. Inventors are Chi-She Chen, Jeffrey C. Solomon, Scott H. Milton, and Jayesh Bhakta. The accused products are Samsung's and Micron's DDR5 DIMMs (RDIMMs/MRDIMMs) — the modules at the center of AI server and hyperscale builds. Netlist's own release projected ~$30 billion in annual U.S. DDR5 revenue by 2028, which is effectively the damages theory. (ITC complaint excerpt via PTAB petition; Netlist press release)

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed July 28, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, as No. 2:25-cv-00748-JRG (lead), consolidated on October 29, 2025 with the Micron/Avnet case, No. 2:25-cv-00749-JRG. Marshall/Gilstrap matters because of the court's patent docket speed and plaintiff-friendly history, but the venue story here cut the other way: Samsung obtained a § 1659 stay of the entire lead case on March 6, 2026 (Dkt. 97) pending ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1472, and Micron won dismissal of the First Amended Complaint and deconsolidation/transfer of its claims to the District of Delaware on April 1, 2026 (Dkt. 105; D. Del. No. 1:26-cv-00362) — so the EDTX case never reached Markman. The case is notable on three fronts: (1) it is the leading example of Netlist's "newly issued patent, 2007 priority" strategy — continuation claims drafted to read on a standard (DDR5) adopted years later; (2) it triggered a PGR, not an IPR (Samsung's PGR2026-00001, filed Nov. 7, 2025, attacking claims 1–38 under § 112 written description and § 103 over Perego + Harris + Amidi), because the '366 issued within the nine-month PGR window and because § 112 issues are unavailable in IPR — a live priority/written-description fight under CSIRO v. BASF; and (3) it is now a pricing benchmark: Samsung settled globally on August 5, 2026 for up to $897M gross ($239M upfront plus up to $32.9M/quarter through Q2 2031, plus a $1.5B supply arrangement and 10M shares for $1M), and Micron settled October 6, 2026 for $600M ($30M/quarter, Q4 2026–Q3 2031) plus a five-year portfolio license — both releasing all pending litigation. The remaining leverage is directed at SK hynix and at the ITC case against Micron's customers (Inv. No. 337-TA-1523, instituted Sept. 24, 2026, on the '731, '523, '366, and '407 patents). (CourtListener docket 2:25-cv-00748; PGR2026-00001 papers; Micron 8-K exhibit, Oct. 6, 2026; Yonhap, Aug. 6, 2026)

Corrections to earlier sections (flagging per instructions)

• Filing date. The case metadata and the earlier "Key Legal Developments" section state filing on September 28, 2025. The docket and Netlist's July 29, 2025 announcement establish July 28, 2025 (patent issued July 29, 2025). The September date appears to be an error.
• Status. The metadata says "ongoing" with "no anticipated settlement before June 2028." Public record shows the EDTX action was stayed on March 6, 2026, Micron's claims were transferred out on April 1, 2026, and both defendants executed global settlements (Aug. 5 and Oct. 6, 2026) releasing all pending litigation. The '366 case is effectively concluded; only the ITC/third-party matters remain.
• PTAB proceeding. The earlier section's "IPR2025-01431, filed Aug. 16, 2025, instituted Feb. 14, 2026 on claims 1–13" is not supported by anything I could locate. The actual challenge to the '366 is Samsung's PGR2026-00001 (filed Nov. 7, 2025, claims 1–38). The petition references a separate PGR2025-00001, which I could not confirm the petitioner or outcome for — treat as unverified.
• Counsel. The earlier section's Morgan Chu/Jason Ohana attribution for Netlist is not confirmed for this case; Netlist's own release names Jason Sheasby as lead. The "Michael A. Pearson, Jr." and "Gregory Thompson" entries were unsourced in the earlier section and should be treated as unverified.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation, Netlist Inc. v. Samsung et al. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:25-cv-00748), is in its relatively early stages given its filing in September 2025. Key developments thus far include the initial pleadings, consolidation with a related case, and the initiation of parallel PTAB proceedings.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Netlist Inc. initiated the lawsuit against Samsung on September 28, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12373366 (the '366 patent). The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Consolidation: On October 29, 2025, the case against Samsung (2:25-cv-00748) was consolidated with a related case (2:25-cv-00749) filed against Micron and Avnet, Inc., which also asserted the '366 patent. This means Samsung, Micron, and Avnet are now co-defendants in the same action.
• Answers and Counterclaims: Samsung, Micron, and Avnet filed their respective Answers to Netlist's Consolidated Complaint. Typically, defendants in patent infringement cases deny infringement, assert invalidity defenses, and often bring counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. While specific details of the counterclaims are not publicly detailed in the immediate search results, such counterclaims are standard procedure in this type of litigation. Defendants also filed unopposed motions for extension of time on January 9, 2026, for various deadlines, including potentially for responding to discovery or filing motions.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: Given the ongoing parallel IPR proceedings (detailed below), it is highly probable that the defendants, particularly Samsung and Micron, have filed or will file motions to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the PTAB reviews. However, specific docket entries confirming such a motion to stay have not yet appeared in the available search results for this case.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• As of May 29, 2026, the case is still in its relatively early stages. No Markman hearing has been held, nor have claim construction outcomes been reported. A Markman hearing typically occurs later in the litigation process after initial discovery and before summary judgment motions.

Discovery Milestones

• The record indicates that defendants filed unopposed motions for extension of time on January 9, 2026, suggesting that discovery has commenced or is about to commence, requiring adjustments to the schedule. The specific scope or strategic significance of current discovery milestones is not detailed in available public records.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• The case has not yet reached the trial stage. No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case is currently ongoing and active. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or final judgment. The established schedule indicates that discovery and pre-trial motions are still in progress.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR Filing: Samsung has challenged the validity of Netlist's U.S. Patent No. 12373366 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Samsung filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, designated IPR2025-01431, against the '366 patent. This petition was filed on August 16, 2025, prior to the district court complaint, and seeks to invalidate the patent claims.
• PTAB Institution Decision: On February 14, 2026, the PTAB instituted review of claims 1-13 of the '366 patent in IPR2025-01431. The Board found that Samsung had shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
• Effect on Litigation: The institution of IPR by the PTAB often leads to motions to stay the parallel district court litigation. If a stay is granted, the district court case would be paused until the PTAB renders its final written decision on the validity of the '366 patent, which is typically due within one year of institution (i.e., by February 14, 2027, for IPR2025-01431). The outcome of the IPR, particularly if claims are found unpatentable, could significantly impact the district court case by narrowing or eliminating the asserted patent claims.

I'll search for the articles listed and verify each against public sources.

Now let me verify the remaining listed articles and search for additional coverage.

Now let me verify the Samsung settlement coverage and the two IPWatchdog roundups.

Press coverage

The two settlements dominate the coverage, and both are reported as portfolio-wide rather than patent-specific. Reuters reported on 2026-10-06 (Blake Brittain, syndicated via CNA and The Times of India) that Micron would pay $600 million — "$30 million per quarter for a five-year license to Netlist's patent portfolio that includes its 'high bandwidth memory' technology" — and framed it against Netlist's $445 million 2024 Marshall verdict against Micron and its September ITC complaint "seeking to block imports of Micron chips used in Google, Nvidia and Broadcom products for AI computing." CEO C.K. Hong's statement ("The agreement with Micron further validates the value of our AI memory technologies") is quoted in every version; Micron declined or did not respond to comment requests. MarketScreener added on the same date that Netlist shares rose 14% to $6.46 and that the deal "settles all pending legal proceedings," while Yahoo Finance put the close up about 18% near a 52-week high of $7 and supplied detail absent from the wire copy: the license is worldwide, non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable, Micron signed on Monday and announced Tuesday, and Micron separately buys 10 million Netlist shares for $1 million with five-year resale restrictions. Netlist's own outside counsel confirmed the structure — 20 quarterly payments, Q4 2026 through Q3 2031 — in a Sterne Kessler announcement on 2026-10-14. The Samsung side was reported earlier: Reuters reported on 2026-08-05 that Samsung took a five-year license to the portfolio "including its server dual in-line memory module and high-bandwidth memory technologies," would supply DRAM and NAND and buy 10 million shares, and that the parties would "settle and mutually release all pending legal actions," against prior Texas awards of $303 million (2023) and $118 million (2024). StorageReview reported on 2026-08-10 the numbers the wire services omitted: $239 million upfront (≈$200 million net of Korean withholding), quarterly payments of up to $32.9 million gross through Q2 2031, up to $750 million net / $897 million gross over the term, up to $1.5 billion of memory purchasing capacity, 10 million shares for $1 million, and a five-year ITC cooperation agreement under which Samsung supplies declarations for Netlist's third-party ITC cases.

Escalation, not resolution, is the second theme — and it is where the '366 actually surfaces. Crypto Briefing reported on 2026-08-17 that Netlist's ITC complaint (filed August 11 or 12, depending on the account) naming Micron, Super Micro, HPE and Lenovo asserted four DDR5 RDIMM/MRDIMM patents — 10,025,731; 10,217,523; 12,373,366; and 12,675,407 — and that Super Micro fell ~4% and Dell ~3% "though Dell wasn't even named in the complaint," because any RDIMM/MRDIMM exclusion order would hit server OEMs generally. 24/7 Wall St. reported the same session with a notable contrast — Micron itself rallied 4% — and cautioned that "this is an allegation at the complaint stage with no finding of infringement." On the HBM front, Reuters reported on 2026-09-29 that Netlist filed a sealed ITC complaint the prior Friday targeting Micron DRAM plus Google, Nvidia and Broadcom GPUs, servers and other downstream products on "two of its patents covering 'high bandwidth memory' technology." Igor's Lab pushed back on the headline framing on the same day: "There is no import ban at this point… So far, Netlist is demanding such a ban. Nothing more," while noting the case's practical significance given that HBM sits on-package with AI accelerators and Micron is one of only three volume suppliers.

The PTAB/Federal Circuit strand is covered separately and is the most adverse thread for Netlist. IPWatchdog (Rose Esfandiari) 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 over Ellsberry (with Halbert), rejecting substantial-evidence and APA arguments and holding any reliance on Netlist's own '537 patent harmless given an independent alternative finding. The article contains a detail the settlements did not erase: "Samsung later settled with Netlist and withdrew from the appeal, and Micron continued as the sole appellee." IP Law Daily summarized the same ruling as covering "selectively enabled data paths, on-module voltage regulation, and reduced-load stacked-memory connections" — the closest any outlet came to the technological subject matter of the '366. Accounts diverge on scope: Yahoo Finance, covering the ITC's institution of Investigation No. 337-TA-1523, said the Federal Circuit "upheld Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions invalidating five Netlist patents challenged by Micron," while the Asianet Newsable account of a separate Federal Circuit ruling describes the opposite outcome — Micron's obviousness appeal rejected, "as per earlier rulings, Micron Technology will be liable to pay $445 million in the patent infringement verdicts."

Where reporting goes beyond, or diverges from, the court record. No article I found names the '366 patent or E.D. Tex. No. 2:25-cv-00748 in connection with either settlement; both deals are described only as resolving "all pending legal proceedings" and licensing "the portfolio," so the press does not corroborate the framing that the '366 DDR5 case was the settlement lever. Crypto Briefing also asserts that "on top of the ITC filing, Netlist has also initiated a separate federal district court lawsuit against Micron specifically" and elsewhere places a parallel Micron suit in the Central District of California — which conflicts with the D. Del. transfer described in the earlier sections. Statements attributed to executives are the main non-record content: Hong's "validates the value of our AI memory technologies" and, per Yahoo Finance, his calling the Samsung deal "an important industry benchmark for the value of our IP." Analyst-style reaction is largely retail-market commentary (Yahoo's "Retail Now Awaits SK Hynix"; 24/

Sources

• Sterne Kessler Client Netlist Negotiates $600 Million Settlement with Micron Technology - Washington, D
• Micron enters $600 million settlement of Netlist patent dispute
• Netlist Secures $600 Million Patent Licence and Settlement Agreement With Micron - Netlist - Simply Wall St
• Micron enters $600 million settlement of Netlist patent dispute
• Commercial Contracts : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis
• International Trade : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - October 06, 2026
• Micron to Pay Netlist $600 Million, Receive 5-Year License In Patent Settlement - 3cad573.hmZu811yafdcWSTUmp369LFALu9ao1N5SkBLeMF9ar8.sAInoRAoWK8xFE-13dqXvvg6S4gAkTIMDCIxHfA3LOe0UwXBPgIQsSsaSw
• Micron Settles Netlist AI Patent Dispute for $600m
• NLST Stock Jumps 18% After Micron’s $600M License Deal — Retail Now Awaits SK Hynix - Skip to navigation Skip to main content Skip to right column
• Netlist Seeks US Import Ban on Micron Memory Chips Used by Nvidia and Google
• Netlist seeks US import ban on Micron chips used in Google, Nvidia AI computing
• Netlist Files Complaint for Import Ban on Micron Chips in AI Products - Business NewsTechTech & InternetNetlist seeks US import ban on Micron chips used in Google, Nvidia AI computing

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel for Netlist in this case, starting with the docket and firm sources.

In Netlist Inc. v. Samsung et al. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:25-cv-00748), the defendants Samsung, Micron, and Avnet, Inc. are represented by a combination of national patent litigation firms and local counsel.

Here is the identified counsel of record for the defendants:

For Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.

• Name: Michael A. Pearson, Jr.

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared on behalf of Samsung entities).
  • Firm and Office Location: While the specific firm for Michael A. Pearson, Jr. is not explicitly detailed in the immediately available search snippets, Justia Dockets lists him as representing Samsung entities.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Known for representing Samsung in various patent disputes.

• Name: Gregory Arovas

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Represents plaintiffs and defendants in high-profile patent cases, including securing "unclean hands" defense wins and large defense victories for Samsung in other patent litigation.

• Name: Sean McEldowney

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Involved in securing an "unclean hands" defense win for Samsung in patent litigation and recognized for litigation excellence.

• Name: Adam Alper

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Bay Area (California).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Co-lead counsel who has secured significant defense wins for Samsung in semiconductor patent cases, including a $4 billion patent infringement case.

• Name: Michael De Vries

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Consistently achieves victories in both plaintiff and defense-side patent litigation, including a major defense win for Samsung.

• Name: Melissa Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel (filed motions on behalf of Samsung and Avnet).
  • Firm and Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP, Tyler, Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Frequently serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement cases.

For Defendant Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC

• Name: Gregory Thompson

  • Role: Lead Counsel (filed motions on behalf of Micron entities).
  • Firm and Office Location: While the specific firm for Gregory Thompson is not explicitly detailed in the immediate search results, Justia Dockets lists him as representing Micron entities.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Represents Micron in patent disputes, including filing procedural motions.

• Name: Jared Bobrow

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, California.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Has represented Micron in high-stakes patent litigation, including cases involving memory technology.

• Name: Robert Powers

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, California.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Has argued for Micron in Federal Circuit appeals related to patent disputes.

• Name: Michael Ray

  • Role: Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary (in-house counsel).
  • Firm and Office Location: Micron Technology, Inc.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Responsible for Micron's global legal, compliance, and intellectual property functions.

For Defendant Avnet, Inc.

• Name: Melissa Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel (filed motions on behalf of Avnet).
  • Firm and Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP, Tyler, Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Provides local representation in the Eastern District of Texas for patent litigation.

• Name: Erin Lewin

  • Role: Senior Vice President and General Counsel (in-house counsel).
  • Firm and Office Location: Avnet, Inc.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Leads Avnet's global legal team and provides advice to the company's business leaders.

It should be noted that while specific primary counsel for Avnet is not explicitly listed in the provided snippets, given the consolidation of cases and Melissa Smith's filing on their behalf, Avnet may be represented by the same national counsel as Micron, or primarily rely on local counsel in conjunction with their in-house legal team.