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.

I'll search multiple angles to find press coverage of this case.

Initial searches returned mostly primary court/PTAB documents. Let me search specifically for press and trade coverage.

Let me try more targeted press-focused queries.

Press and analysis coverage

Finding: I could locate no published news article, trade-press story, or analyst note about Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc. itself. I ran searches on the case caption, the party names in combination ("Palisade Technologies" + Micron + patent), the assertion that the suit was an NPE filing, and the January 2026 dismissal/settlement, and the results returned only primary-source material — PTAB petition papers and exhibits hosted on the USPTO's PTACTS system, docket aggregators (Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia Dockets), and Micron's own SEC filings. Nothing from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Ars Technica, The Verge, JD Supra, Patently-O, or the EFF referenced this dispute. This is consistent with the case's profile: a single-defendant NPE complaint in a heavily trafficked venue that settled before trial, which is rarely newsworthy unless a large damages figure, an unusual ruling, or a parallel ITC action draws attention. Notably, even the discovery and PTAB papers in the record lean on secondary-source exhibits rather than press coverage of the case — e.g., Micron's IPR papers cite "Bloomberg Law Search results" as an exhibit (Ex-1060 in IPR2025-01009/01008), suggesting the parties themselves relied on commercial legal databases rather than news reporting.

The one adjacent, genuinely reported story is a different dispute — YMTC v. Micron — and should not be read as coverage of this case. Law360 ran a June 11, 2025 item headlined "Micron's National Security Arguments Fall Flat At PTAB," reporting that the PTAB agreed to consider validity challenges Micron and Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. brought against each other, overriding "Micron's national security arguments." Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP's Patent Lawyer Blog (also syndicated to Mondaq and MarketScreener) analyzed the June 10, 2025 decision in Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. v. Micron Technology, Inc., IPR2025-00098, quoting the Board's statement that "[t]o date, the Director has not provided any guidance as to when a panel should deny institution based on foreign policy or national security implications." That coverage is relevant here only as context: Micron made the same "national security / CHIPS Act" pitch in its Palisade IPRs (Micron's Request for Director Review in IPR2025-01009 argued "[c]ompelling economic and national security interests warrant institution," and its exhibit list included Trump-administration and CHIPS-related items), and those arguments failed there too — the Director denied review. I found no outlet that connected the two threads in print.

Contradictions with the earlier sections that the record materials resolve. Two points in the previously generated sections now look inaccurate: (1) The plaintiff-representative section describes Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC as "based in Austin, Texas," but the W.D. Tex. docket reproduced in the PTAB filings lists that firm at a Dallas address and a Waco address, and identifies the Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. attorneys (David T. DeZern, Jonathan H. Rastegar, Patrick J. Conroy, Ryan Griffin, T. William Kennedy Jr. — Dallas) as the lead attorneys for Palisade, not merely co-counsel. (2) The "Key legal developments" section states that "no specific Markman outcome or order has been publicly detailed." In fact a Claim Construction Order exists and is cited in the IPR petitions as an exhibit — "Claim Construction Order and Memorandum in Support Thereof, 24-cv-00262, ECF No. 93," posted to the docket on or about October 13, 2025, i.e., shortly after the October 1, 2025 Markman hearing contemplated by the scheduling order — and it is one of the exhibits Micron relied on. Also worth flagging for completeness: Palisade apparently asserted the same portfolio separately against Yangtze Memory Technologies in E.D. Tex. (docket aggregator listing Palisade Tech LLP v. Yangtze Memory Tech Co Ltd, No. 2:25-cv-01170, filed November 26, 2025), which no secondary source appears to have reported either.

Bottom line: for this task there is no press record to summarize. The only attributable reporting I found concerns the YMTC–Micron IPR fight and Micron's broader national-security framing at the PTAB, not Palisade v. Micron; the settlement amount, any damages figure, and the terms of the January 26, 2026 dismissal are not publicly reported in any source I could locate, and the earlier sections' statements about the absence of a Markman order and about plaintiff's lead counsel should be corrected against the docket exhibits.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Against that backdrop, using inter partes review (IPR) to resolve patent
• Further, unlike the patent owners in many denials based on “settled expectations,” Palisade did not acquire the patent before is...
• IPR2025-01560, No. 10 Motion Motion to dismiss due to settlement pre DI - Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Pre Institution (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2026) - IPR2025-01560, No
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Palisade Technologies, LLP, IPR2025-01561 (P.T.A.B.) - Track Docket
• IPR2025-01560, No. 9 PO Discretionary Denial Brief - Patent Owners Discretionary Denial Briefing (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2025) - Exhibits:
• Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc. – CourtListener.com - Trial Court Document
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
• Cases
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND DIVISION
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• U.S. District Court LIVEWestern District of Texas (Midland)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:24-cv-00262-DC-DTG

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.