Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.

Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.: Patent Infringement Case Overview

This patent infringement lawsuit, Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, centers on allegations of infringement related to memory technologies. The case is part of a broader litigation strategy by the plaintiff and is unfolding in a jurisdiction known for its patent-friendly environment.

The plaintiff, Palisade Technologies, LLP, is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) that acquires intellectual property for licensing and litigation purposes. Formed in July 2024, Palisade Technologies acquired a portfolio of patents, including those at issue, from SanDisk Technologies LLC in August 2024, promptly initiating litigation thereafter. The defendant, Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. (YMTC), is a major Chinese semiconductor integrated device manufacturer (IDM) specializing in 3D NAND flash memory chips. YMTC designs, produces, and sells a wide range of 3D NAND flash memory products and solutions for applications in mobile devices, PCs, and data centers. The accused products are YMTC's 3D NAND flash memory products and solutions, which are alleged to infringe patents covering aspects of memory architecture and solid-state storage technologies.

The patents asserted in this case are U.S. Patent No. 9,524,974 and U.S. Patent No. 8,996,838. U.S. Patent No. 9,524,974 relates to data storage interfacing, describing methods and apparatuses for efficiently managing data within memory systems. U.S. Patent No. 8,996,838 covers memory circuit design, specifically detailing a "STRUCTURE VARIATION DETECTION FOR A MEMORY HAVING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEMORY CONFIGURATION." The case, bearing case number 2:25-cv-01170, was filed on November 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is notable for its historically plaintiff-friendly reputation, specialized patent rules, and a "rocket docket" approach, which often leads to faster adjudication of patent disputes. [cite: 2 previous searches, 5 previous searches]

This litigation is significant due to Palisade Technologies' pattern of assertion as a patent assertion entity and its broader litigation campaign. Palisade has also filed a related suit against Micron Technology, Inc., which involved five patents, including the two asserted in this case (9,524,974 and 8,996,838). The Micron case, filed in the Western District of Texas, was dismissed with prejudice in January 2026, indicating a conclusive resolution. [cite: 8, 15 previous searches] Furthermore, Micron initiated an inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 8,996,838 (IPR2025-01560) in October 2025, which has since been terminated. [cite: 14 previous searches] No active IPRs were found for U.S. Patent No. 9,524,974. The dispute also highlights the market context of critical semiconductor technologies, particularly 3D NAND flash memory, and involves YMTC, a prominent Chinese manufacturer that was added to the U.S. Entity List in December 2022, adding a geopolitical dimension to the intellectual property conflict. [cite: 3 previous searches]

Patent Infringement Litigation: Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.

Case Caption: Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.
Case Number: 2:25-cv-01170
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Filed: 2025-11-26
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,524,974 and 8,996,838
Status: Ongoing

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Palisade Technologies, LLP against Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. (YMTC), is part of a broader litigation effort by Palisade. The case, initiated in the Eastern District of Texas, involves patents related to memory architecture and data storage interfacing.

Key Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-11-26): Palisade Technologies, LLP filed its complaint against Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,524,974 and 8,996,838. The complaint asserts that YMTC's flash memory products infringe these patents.
• Details regarding YMTC's answer and any counterclaims are not yet publicly available in the provided search results.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• As of May 15, 2026, the available information does not detail any substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment filed specifically within this case (2:25-cv-01170). Given the case's relatively recent filing date in late 2025, these stages may not have been reached or publicly reported yet.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no publicly available information on any Markman hearing or claim construction order for this specific case (2:25-cv-01170) as of the current date.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No strategic discovery milestones have been publicly reported for this case in the available information.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case is ongoing and has not reached the trial stage. Therefore, there are no verdicts or post-trial motions to report.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. There has been no reported settlement, dismissal, or judgment in this specific litigation.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
The asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,524,974 and 8,996,838, have been challenged in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), primarily by Micron Technology, Inc., a defendant in a related Palisade litigation.

• IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009 (US 9,524,974 and US 9,281,314 respectively, though '974 is at issue here): Micron Technology Inc. filed IPR petitions against Palisade Technologies, LLP. On October 17, 2025, the PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution of these IPRs. The Board's decision considered the arguments from both parties, including Palisade's request for discretionary denial, and determined that denial of institution was appropriate based on a holistic assessment of the evidence and arguments. The PTAB noted that while parallel district court proceedings were ongoing, it was unclear if a final written decision from the IPRs would issue before a potential district court trial.
• IPR2025-01560 (US 8,996,838): Micron Semiconductor Products Inc. also filed IPR2025-01560 against Palisade Technologies LLP, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,996,838. This IPR was filed on October 14, 2025, and has since been terminated. The outcome of this termination is not specified in the available information, but it typically means the proceeding concluded without a final written decision on the merits, often due to settlement or petitioner withdrawal.

Effect of PTAB Proceedings on Litigation:
The discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009 means that the validity challenges raised by Micron (and potentially relevant to YMTC's defense, given the shared patents) will not be reviewed by the PTAB on those specific petitions. This potentially allows the district court litigation to proceed without the immediate threat of patent claims being invalidated by the PTAB. The termination of IPR2025-01560 likewise means no PTAB ruling on the merits of patent 8,996,838 from that particular petition.

Related Litigation (Palisade v. Micron):
It is notable that Palisade Technologies, LLP also filed a related infringement lawsuit against Micron Technology, Inc. (7:24-cv-00262) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This case, which involved the same patents (9,524,974 and 8,996,838) among others, was dismissed with prejudice on January 26, 2026. This outcome in the Micron case, which involved a robust early defense strategy, suggests that similar strategies might be employed by YMTC. The dismissal "with prejudice" in the Micron case permanently bars Palisade from refiling the same infringement claims against Micron.

Palisade Technologies, LLP is represented by counsel from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC. The following attorneys are identified as representing the plaintiff in Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.:

• Patrick Joseph Conroy

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Not specified in search results for this case. However, other attorneys from the firm are noted to be in Dallas.
  • Experience Note: Conroy was also listed as counsel for Palisade Technologies, LLP in a related case against Micron Technology, Inc..

• Thomas William Kennedy, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Dallas
  • Experience Note: Kennedy was also listed as counsel for Palisade Technologies, LLP in a related case against Micron Technology, Inc..

• Ryan P. Griffin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Dallas
  • Experience Note: Griffin was also listed as counsel for Palisade Technologies, LLP in a related case against Micron Technology, Inc..

• Jonathan Hart Rastegar

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Dallas
  • Experience Note: Rastegar was also listed as counsel for Palisade Technologies, LLP in a related case against Micron Technology, Inc..

• David Thomas DeZern

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Dallas
  • Experience Note: DeZern was also listed as counsel for Palisade Technologies, LLP in a related case against Micron Technology, Inc..

It is common practice in the Eastern District of Texas for local counsel to be involved in patent cases. Melissa R. Smith, a partner at Gillam & Smith, LLP in Marshall, Texas, has extensive experience as local counsel in thousands of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas and is recognized as a top intellectual property litigation attorney. While not explicitly listed on the provided PacerMonitor docket entry for this specific case, her firm's significant presence and reputation in the venue suggest a high likelihood of their involvement in a local counsel capacity for cases of this nature.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. in Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.:

For Defendant Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.:

• Michael Autuoro

  • Role: Counsel (specific role as lead or local not explicitly stated, but appears as one of the initial attorneys).
  • Firm: Information on Michael Autuoro's specific firm was not immediately available in the search results.
  • Relevant Experience: Further details on his specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for Yangtze Memory Technologies were not readily available in the provided snippets.

• Patrick Joseph Conroy

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided snippets for this attorney, but the firm has an office in Dallas.
  • Relevant Experience: The firm Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC is listed as representing Palisade Technologies LLP in a related PTAB IPR, suggesting their involvement in patent litigation.

• Thomas William Kennedy, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC - Dallas.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: The firm Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC is listed as representing Palisade Technologies LLP in a related PTAB IPR, suggesting their involvement in patent litigation.

• Ryan P Griffin

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC - Dallas.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: The firm Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC is listed as representing Palisade Technologies LLP in a related PTAB IPR, suggesting their involvement in patent litigation.

• Jonathan Hart Rastegar

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC - Dallas.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: The firm Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC is listed as representing Palisade Technologies LLP in a related PTAB IPR, suggesting their involvement in patent litigation.

• David Thomas DeZern

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC - Dallas.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: David T. Dezern from Nelson Bumgardner Albritton (likely the same firm or a predecessor/related entity) is listed as an attorney for Palisade Technologies LLP in a related PTAB IPR. This might indicate that the firm is representing Palisade, or that this attorney has experience with both sides in patent litigation.

It is important to note that one search result indicates "Plaintiff's Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC", while other entries from the PACER Monitor data show individual attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC appearing for the defendant, Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.. This discrepancy suggests the possibility that Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC might be involved in different capacities across related cases or that some information might be misattributed in the search results. Based on the explicit "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael Autuoro on behalf of Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd." and the listing of other attorneys under "Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd." on PacerMonitor, I have listed them as defense counsel. A related PTAB IPR also lists Nelson Bumgardner Albritton as representing Palisade Technologies LLP, the plaintiff in this district court case.

No explicit "in-house" counsel for Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. were identified in the specific context of their appearance in this case, although YMTC generally employs in-house patent litigation attorneys. Filings do not appear to be sealed regarding counsel appearances.