Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

Palisade Technologies, LLP, a patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated patent infringement litigation against Micron Technology, Inc., along with its subsidiaries Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. and Micron Technology Texas LLC. Palisade Technologies, which was formed in July 2024 and acquired its patent portfolio shortly before filing suit, operates by pursuing licensing and litigation strategies based on its intellectual property. In contrast, Micron Technology is a prominent global leader in the semiconductor industry, specializing in the design, manufacture, and sale of memory and storage solutions, including Dynamic Random-Access Memory (DRAM), NAND flash memory, NOR memory, and Solid-State Drives (SSDs) for a wide range of applications.

Palisade Technologies alleged that various Micron memory and storage products infringed its patents. The accused products included Micron's Crucial X9 Portable SSD, Micron 7450 Pro, LPDDR5 memory modules, as well as other DRAM, NAND Flash, and NOR Flash memory products and solid-state storage devices. While the case metadata listed three patents at issue, Palisade initially asserted five U.S. patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,996,838, 8,327,051, and 9,281,314, alongside U.S. Patent Nos. 8,148,962 and 9,524,974. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 8,996,838 relates to memory circuit design or structure variation detection for three-dimensional memory configurations, U.S. Patent No. 8,327,051 covers memory circuit design enhancements, and U.S. Patent No. 9,281,314 pertains to semiconductor architectures.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division, case number 7:24-cv-00262, assigned to Judge David Counts and referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. The Western District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent litigation, particularly among non-practicing entities, due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly practices and fast-moving dockets. The case is notable for highlighting common NPE assertion patterns, where a PAE acquires patents and quickly files suit against a major operating company like Micron. It also demonstrates the interplay between district court litigation and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, as Micron filed Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against some of Palisade's patents (e.g., IPR2025-01009 and IPR2025-01560) challenging their validity, arguing that the patents could jeopardize domestic semiconductor manufacturing and national security interests. The litigation concluded with a dismissal with prejudice, indicating a strong outcome for Micron, likely resulting from a negotiated settlement or a robust defense strategy that led to the extinguishment of Palisade's claims.

Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al. was a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case involved allegations of infringement against Micron's memory and storage products, asserting five U.S. patents. The litigation concluded with a settlement and dismissal with prejudice before reaching trial.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-10-16: Palisade Technologies, LLP filed the initial complaint against Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,148,962; 8,327,051; 8,996,838; 9,281,314; and 9,524,974.
• 2024-12-19: Palisade Technologies filed a First Amended Complaint.
• 2025-07-28: Palisade Technologies filed a Second Amended Complaint (Redacted).

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-04-04: The court issued a scheduling order outlining key deadlines for the case.
• 2025-04-16: Palisade Technologies served its preliminary infringement contentions.
• 2025-05-14 (approx.): Micron filed its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,148,962, 8,327,051, and 9,281,314. The deadline for invalidity contentions for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,996,838 and 9,524,974 was later extended to July 3, 2025.
• Palisade sought an injunction barring Micron from manufacturing dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) in the United States.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The scheduling order set deadlines for claim construction briefing, with the defendant's opening brief due on 2025-07-30, the plaintiff's responsive brief due on 2025-08-20, and the defendant's reply brief due on 2025-09-03. Due to the case's dismissal in January 2026, it is likely that claim construction was either ongoing or completed shortly before the settlement, but no specific Markman outcome or order has been publicly detailed.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• The exchange of preliminary infringement and invalidity contentions represented early, significant discovery milestones, shaping the claims and defenses for both parties.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial. A jury trial was originally scheduled to begin on 2026-10-05.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• 2026-01-26: The case was terminated and dismissed with prejudice after the parties reached a settlement. The dismissal permanently barred Palisade from refiling the same claims.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01009, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,281,314, owned by Palisade Technologies, LLP.
• Micron also filed IPR2025-01008, challenging another patent owned by Palisade Technologies.
• In IPR2025-01009, Micron filed a Request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Micron argued that the IPR should be instituted due to "compelling economic and national security interests" related to U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, citing the CHIPS Act. Micron contended that Palisade was a non-practicing entity (NPE) that acquired the '314 patent shortly before suing Micron and had no product or commercial activity. The PTAB's discretionary denial likely considered "Fintiv" factors and the patent's age.
• The PTAB documents indicate that Palisade was incorporated in July 2024, acquired the '314 patent in August 2024, and filed suit against Micron in October 2024.

Here is the counsel of record representing Palisade Technologies, LLP in Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al.:

Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC

• Jonathan H. Rastegar
  • Role: Counsel. The specific role (e.g., lead, local) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but he represented the plaintiff.
  • Firm Location: The firm Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC is based in Austin, Texas.
  • Note: Further information on specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for Mr. Rastegar was not found in the provided search snippets.
• Mark D. Siegmund
  • Role: Counsel. The specific role (e.g., lead, local) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but he represented the plaintiff.
  • Firm Location: The firm Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC is based in Austin, Texas.
  • Note: Further information on specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for Mr. Siegmund was not found in the provided search snippets.
• Ryan Griffin
  • Role: Counsel. The specific role (e.g., lead, local) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but he represented the plaintiff.
  • Firm Location: The firm Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC is based in Austin, Texas.
  • Note: Further information on specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for Mr. Griffin was not found in the provided search snippets.
• William D. Ellerman
  • Role: Counsel. The specific role (e.g., lead, local) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but he represented the plaintiff.
  • Firm Location: The firm Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC is based in Austin, Texas.
  • Note: Further information on specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for Mr. Ellerman was not found in the provided search snippets.

Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC

• David T. DeZern
  • Role: Counsel. The specific role (e.g., lead, local) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but he represented the plaintiff.
  • Firm Location: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC has an office in Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Note: David T. DeZern is also listed as an attorney for Palisade Technologies LLP in related PTAB IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01560).
• Patrick J. Conroy
  • Role: Counsel. The specific role (e.g., lead, local) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but he represented the plaintiff.
  • Firm Location: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC has an office in Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Note: Further information on specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for Mr. Conroy was not found in the provided search snippets.
• T. William Kennedy Jr.
  • Role: Counsel. He filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Palisade Technologies, LLP.
  • Firm Location: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.
  • Note: T. William Kennedy, Jr. is specifically mentioned as having filed a notice of appearance early in the case. Further details on his specific patent litigation experience beyond this case were not found in the provided snippets.

The counsel of record representing the defendant(s), Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC, in Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al. (7:24-cv-00262) are primarily from O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the identified attorneys:

• Patric M. Reinbold
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: While specific experience for this case isn't detailed in the provided snippets, O'Melveny & Myers LLP is a prominent firm in patent litigation, and his listing suggests a lead role. The firm has a significant presence in intellectual property and patent defense.
• Paige Hardy
  • Role: Attorney (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Office Location: (Likely Washington D.C. or another O'Melveny office, as the snippet refers to "See above for address" after Reinbold's D.C. office)
  • Relevant Experience: The snippet indicates an attorney to be noticed in the case, suggesting active involvement.
• Khanh Nguyen Leon
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Office Location: (Likely Washington D.C. or another O'Melveny office, as the snippet refers to "See above for address")
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as an attorney to be noticed, indicating active participation.
• Timothy S. Durst
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Office Location: (Likely Washington D.C. or another O'Melveny office, as the snippet refers to "See above for address")
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as an attorney to be noticed, suggesting involvement in the case.

It is worth noting that while some search results mentioned "Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC" and associated counsel for Micron in other contexts (e.g., Klarquist for appellate work), the provided docket information specifically lists the O'Melveny & Myers attorneys for the Palisade Technologies case. Michael Ray is identified as the chief legal officer and corporate secretary at Micron Technology, responsible for global legal, compliance, and intellectual property functions, indicating an in-house role, though not specifically as counsel of record in this particular district court case.