Palisade Technologies LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc.

Palisade Technologies LLP, a patent assertion entity (PAE), has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Micron Technology, Inc., a prominent American multinational semiconductor company known for manufacturing computer memory and data storage products, including DRAM, flash memory, and SSDs. The case, 2:25-cv-01170, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 25, 2025. Public records for this specific case number (2:25-cv-01170) in the Eastern District of Texas identify the defendant as Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.. However, per the provided authoritative case metadata, this overview will proceed with Micron Technology, Inc. as the defendant.

The primary patent asserted in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 9,281,314. This patent generally pertains to semiconductor architectures. While the specific accused products in this particular Eastern District of Texas case (2:25-cv-01170) against Micron are not readily detailed in publicly available summaries under this exact caption, in related litigation, Palisade Technologies has accused Micron of infringing patents through products such as Crucial X9 Portable SSDs, Micron 7450 Pro, and LPDDR5 memory modules. These products involve technologies like 3D NAND, USB-C ports, and voltage regulators, suggesting the scope of accused technology likely falls within Micron's memory and storage solutions.

The case is active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue widely recognized for its high volume of patent litigation, particularly by non-practicing entities, and for its plaintiff-favorable outcomes. Judge Rodney Gilstrap, known for presiding over a significant number of patent cases, is assigned to case number 2:25-cv-01170 in the Eastern District of Texas. The notability of this case stems from Palisade's pattern as a patent assertion entity, often acquiring patents through divestitures (e.g., from Western Digital and SanDisk subsidiaries) and then asserting them against major operating companies like Micron. Furthermore, in a related development, Micron Technology Inc. has challenged the '314 patent's validity by filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies, LLP at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on May 29, 2025, indicating an ongoing parallel challenge to the asserted patent outside of district court.

The patent infringement case of Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc., originally identified as 2:25-cv-01170 in the Eastern District of Texas, appears to be primarily litigated under case number 7:24-cv-00262 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This summary will detail the developments of the latter, more extensively documented case.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for the litigation concerning patent 9281314, among others:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2024-10-16): Palisade Technologies, LLP filed a patent infringement complaint against Micron Technology, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This initial complaint asserted five U.S. patents, including US9281314B1, among others relating to memory architecture and solid-state storage technologies.
• First Amended Complaint: By July 2025, Palisade Technologies had filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting direct, willful, and indirect infringement claims against Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC.
• Second Amended Complaint: Palisade Technologies requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to provide additional details, particularly for direct infringement of the '962 patent and inducement claims.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)) (Prior to 2025-07-24): Micron Technology, Inc. filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Palisade's claims.
• Report and Recommendation on Motion to Dismiss (2025-07-24): A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on Micron's motion to dismiss. The R&R recommended that the motion be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Specifically, it recommended granting dismissal for direct infringement claims of the '962 patent and pre-suit willful and induced infringement claims. However, it recommended denying dismissal for post-suit willful and induced infringement claims, finding the allegations sufficient. The R&R also recommended granting Palisade's request to file its Second Amended Complaint.

3. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings and Their Effect

• IPR Petitions Filed (2025-05-30): Micron Technology, Inc. filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging patent US9281314 (IPR2025-01009) and patent US8327051 (IPR2025-01008). These petitions challenged every claim of the '314 Patent asserted against Defendants in the district court litigation.
• Sotera Stipulation (2025-08-13): Micron filed a "Sotera stipulation" in the district court, notifying the court that if the PTAB instituted the pending IPRs, Micron would not pursue any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR in the district court case.
• PTAB Denies Institution (2025-10-17): The PTAB issued decisions for IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009, denying institution of both IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board stated that discretionary denial was appropriate based on a holistic assessment, noting the uncertainty of whether a final written decision in the IPRs would issue before a scheduled district court trial date of October 5, 2026.

4. Final Disposition

• Case Closed (2026-01-26): The district court case, 7:24-cv-00262, officially closed.
• Dismissal with Prejudice (2026-05-14): All infringement claims brought by Palisade Technologies, LLP against Micron Technology, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This means Palisade is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims. Micron's counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice. No damages award or injunctive relief was reported. This relatively swift resolution, without a publicly reported trial, suggests a negotiated settlement or dispositive motions led to the dismissal.

I'll search multiple angles for press coverage of this litigation.

Let me search additional angles, including trade press and PTAB coverage.

Press coverage

Bottom line: this case has generated almost no press coverage. Across searches on the caption, the party names, the '314 patent number, and the PTAB proceedings, I found no Reuters, Law360, Bloomberg Law, IPWatchdog, Ars Technica, The Verge, or Patently-O article about Palisade Technologies LLP v. Micron Technology as docketed at 2:25-cv-01170 (E.D. Tex.). What exists is one identifiable news item about the earlier-filed Western District of Texas suit, plus litigation-analytics database entries that are not journalism.

The one news item found. Bloomberg Law, in an article headlined "Micron Hit With Patent Suit Over Its Storage, Memory Products" (surfaced via its Muck Rack syndication record; I could not open the underlying paywalled article, so the exact publication date and byline are unverified — the piece describes the complaint as "filed Wednesday," consistent with the 2024-10-16 filing), reported that "Micron Technology Inc. and two of its units infringed multiple patents by creating storage devices and memory products," identifying plaintiff Palisade Technologies LLP as Nevada-based and naming Micron Semiconductor Products Inc. and Micron Technology Texas LLC alongside the parent. Per that summary, the accused products "utilized similar methods to those covered by" U.S. Patent Nos. 8,148,962, 8,996,838, 8,327,051, 9,281,314 and 9,524,974. The item treats the case as a routine multi-patent NPE filing in W.D. Tex.; it does not discuss the '314 patent specifically, and no damages figure, royalty demand, settlement amount, or market-impact estimate appears in any coverage found.

Where the "coverage" is actually databases, not press. The substantive public write-ups I located are commercial litigation-analytics pages, not reporting: Patsnap summarizes 7:24-cv-00262 as filed 2024-10-16 and closed 2026-01-26 with five patents asserted and accused products including the Crucial X9 portable SSD, Micron 7450 Pro, and LPDDR5 memory modules; RPX Insight lists the same case as willful patent infringement in the semiconductor/​networking sector; and Docket Alarm, GreyB/IPVerse, and CourtListener supply docket-level records (e.g., IPR2025-01009's institution decision date of 2025-10-17 and "Discretionary Denial" status). None of these add reporting or independent sourcing, and none should be described as press analysis. Notably, the databases again list docket number 2:25-cv-01170 in E.D. Tex. as Palisade Tech LLP v. Yangtze Memory Tech Co Ltd — a direct contradiction of the case metadata that was already flagged in the earlier sections of this report and that no press source resolves.

Reporting that goes beyond the court record: essentially none. The only advocacy-flavored public statements I found are the parties' own filings, not journalism — Micron's Director Review requests in IPR2025-01008/01009 argue that denying institution harms U.S. "economic and national-security interests," domestic memory supply for AI, and CHIPS-backed jobs, while Palisade's filings call Micron's positions "desperate" and note that SanDisk/Western Digital, not Micron, originated the patents. Those are briefs, not coverage. Similarly, the Smith Anderson client alert "Navigating the Brave New World of PTAB Discretionary Denials" (2025-10-31) explains the new § 314(a) "settled expectations" regime generally but does not mention Palisade or this case. Anyone characterizing this dispute in public commentary is doing so from the docket and PTAB papers, not from a press record.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Against that backdrop, using inter partes review (IPR) to resolve patent
• The challenged claims’ unpatentability, as amply demonstrated in the Petition, should be tried on the merits
• Palisade Technologies v. Micron Technology | Patent Lawsuit 7:24-cv-00262 - Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc.
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Palisade Technologies, LLP, IPR2025-01561 (P.T.A.B.) - Track Docket
• Search PTAB court records on claim w3 construction - party Micron Technology - - All Courts
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered - - All Courts
• Cases
• Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc. – CourtListener.com - Trial Court Document
• Petition analysis | IPR2025-01009 | Micron Technology Inc v. Palisade Technologies LLP | Ex Parte
• IPR2025- 01009 U
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

Due to a discrepancy between the provided case metadata and publicly available docket information, it is not possible to definitively identify the counsel of record for Palisade Technologies LLP in the case Palisade Technologies LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc., case number 2:25-cv-01170, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Searches for case number 2:25-cv-01170 in the Eastern District of Texas consistently indicate the defendant as Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd., not Micron Technology, Inc.. For instance, PacerMonitor and Justia Dockets both list "Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd." under this case number.

Given the instruction to treat the provided case metadata (Palisade Technologies LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc., 2:25-cv-01170 E.D. Tex.) as authoritative, and the absence of publicly available docket entries for such a case, it appears that counsel of record for the plaintiff in this specific, identified case has not been made public or the filings are sealed. Therefore, the requested information cannot be provided at this time.

To identify the counsel of record for Micron Technology, Inc. in Palisade Technologies LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc., case number 2:25-cv-01170 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, further specific docket review is needed. Publicly accessible web searches did not immediately yield a direct list of attorneys appearing in this specific Eastern District of Texas case (2:25-cv-01170) which was filed on 2025-04-25 and is currently active.

While some search results mentioned a related case between Palisade Technologies LLP and Micron Technology, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (case number 7:24-cv-00262), which was filed on October 16, 2024, and dismissed with prejudice on January 26, 2026, the counsel listed there (from O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC) pertains to that dismissed case, not the active Eastern District of Texas case specified in the prompt.

Therefore, based on the information currently available through web search, the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in Palisade Technologies LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc., 2:25-cv-01170, cannot be definitively identified at this time. Filings for this specific case are not openly available through the conducted web searches to determine the appearing attorneys. It is possible that initial appearances have been filed in PACER but are not yet reflected in public legal news or databases searchable by the provided tools.