Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Netlist, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Netlist, Inc. et al., involves major players in the technology and memory industries. Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. are global operating companies specializing in a wide array of electronics, including semiconductors, smartphones, and memory products. Defendant Netlist, Inc. is a California-based company focused on designing and manufacturing advanced memory technologies for cloud computing and high-performance markets. Netlist operates both as a developer and an assertive licensor of its memory patent portfolio. Google LLC and its parent company, Alphabet, Inc., also operating companies, were later joined as defendants in Netlist's counterclaims.

The dispute centers on allegations of infringement related to Samsung's memory modules, specifically DDR4 LRDIMMs, RDIMMs, and later DDR5 SODIMM and UDIMM memory modules, which implement JEDEC industry standards. Netlist's counterclaims against Google and Alphabet stemmed from their alleged use of these Samsung memory modules in their products. While Samsung initially sought declaratory judgment of non-infringement for several of Netlist's patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,217,523, 10,474,595, 9,858,218, and 7,619,912, among others, the scope of the case in Delaware was narrowed when Judge Richard G. Andrews dismissed claims related to several patents in August 2022. The primary patent at issue, US10217523B1, broadly covers advancements in memory modules and methods of operation, particularly relating to load-reduced memory module technology for enhanced energy efficiency and reliable signal processing at high data rates, often asserted as essential to JEDEC standards.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Richard G. Andrews, the case was stayed on December 1, 2023, pending the resolution of a related contract dispute in the Central District of California concerning a Joint Development and License Agreement (JDLA) between Netlist and Samsung. Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation due to a high concentration of major U.S. corporations being incorporated there, providing a common forum under patent venue laws. This litigation is notable as part of a broader, multi-year, multi-venue legal conflict between Netlist and Samsung (and indirectly Google), which arose after Netlist terminated their JDLA in 2020. The case also involved parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where the '523 patent, for instance, was found valid. Significantly, as of August 5, 2026, Netlist and Samsung announced a comprehensive five-year strategic alliance and cross-licensing agreement, which included the settlement and mutual release of all pending legal actions between the companies, effectively resolving this and other related litigations.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Netlist, Inc. et al. (1:21-cv-01453-RGA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware saw several key legal developments before ultimately being resolved as part of a broader settlement between the parties.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2021-2022)

  • 2021-10-15: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") initiated a declaratory judgment (DJ) action against Netlist, Inc. ("Netlist") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.), seeking a declaration of non-infringement for several patents, including US10217523B1, US9858218B2, US10474595B2, US7619912B2, US10860506B2, US10949339B2, and US11016918B2. Samsung later sought to add US11232054B2.
  • 2022-08-01: Judge Richard G. Andrews dismissed Samsung's claims regarding US7619912B2, US10860506B2, US10949339B2, and US11016918B2, and denied Samsung's request to add the US11232054B2 patent to the Delaware action.
  • 2022-09-12: Netlist amended its counterclaims to include patent infringement allegations against Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. (collectively, "Google Delaware Defendants"), in addition to Samsung.

• Pre-trial Motions & Stays (2022-2023)

  • 2022-11-15: The Google Delaware Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively, to sever and stay Netlist's counterclaims against them. Oral arguments for this motion were heard on May 22, 2023.
  • 2023-10-10: The D. Del. Court entered an order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Samsung's earlier motion to stay. The court stayed claims related to US9858218B2 and US10474595B2, but allowed claims concerning US10217523B1 to proceed.
  • 2023-12-01: The D. Del. Court entered an Oral Order staying the entire matter until the resolution of any action by another court pertaining to Samsung's and Netlist's rights under their Joint Development and License Agreement (JDLA). This stay was crucial, as a related JDLA breach case was ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:20-cv-00993).

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2021-2025)

  • 2021-11-19: Samsung filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of Netlist's US9858218B2, US10474595B2, and US10217523B1 patents.
  • IPR2022-00063 (for US10217523B1): This IPR was filed on October 15, 2021, and instituted on May 5, 2022.
    • 2023-05-03: The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of Netlist's US10217523B1 patent, finding the challenged claims not unpatentable.
    • 2025-03-06: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the PTAB's decision, thus upholding the validity of US10217523B1.
  • IPR2022-00062 (for US9858218B2): The PTAB issued a final written decision on May 8, 2023, finding all challenged claims of this patent unpatentable.
  • Samsung also initiated other IPRs on different Netlist patents, some of which were upheld at the PTAB, such as US10268608B2 (upheld on 2024-12-23).

• Related Litigation and JDLA (2020-2024)

  • 2020-05-28: Netlist filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Samsung in the Central District of California (8:20-cv-00993) related to their Joint Development and License Agreement (JDLA).
  • 2024-05-17: A jury in the Central District of California found that Samsung materially breached the JDLA, concluding that Samsung no longer possessed a license to Netlist's patent portfolio. This outcome directly impacted the Delaware case, as the D. Del. stay was predicated on the resolution of this JDLA dispute.

• Final Disposition: Settlement (2026-08-05)

  • No claim construction (Markman) hearings or specific discovery milestones were noted in the D. Del. case due to its stayed status. Similarly, no trial or verdict occurred in this specific Delaware action. Any trials or verdicts reported (e.g., a $118 million jury verdict in EDTX on November 22, 2024) were from separate, although related, patent infringement cases between the parties in other venues.
  • 2026-08-05: Netlist and Samsung announced a five-year strategic alliance, which includes a comprehensive patent cross-licensing agreement, memory product supply, and technology cooperation. This agreement explicitly brings an end to all pending litigation between the parties, including the Delaware declaratory judgment action (1:21-cv-01453-RGA). While the D. Del. case was officially stayed, this global settlement will lead to its dismissal.

I'll research press coverage of this litigation, starting with the ten articles supplied and then broadening to other outlets.

I've exhausted my available searches, so this section reflects what I could actually retrieve and verify. Two upfront caveats: (1) press coverage of the Delaware declaratory-judgment action itself is very thin — nearly all reporting concerns the parallel Section 337 investigation at the ITC (which asserted the '523 patent among six patents) and the August 2026 global settlement, plus the separate Netlist–Micron fights; and (2) for two of the supplied items (Korea Times and Digitimes of 2026-08-06) I could not open the exact page, so I confirmed their substance against the ITC's own Federal Register notice and against contemporaneous coverage carrying the same figures.

Press coverage & analysis

What the coverage reports. The dominant story is the settlement and its knock-on effect at the trade agency. Digitimes reported on 2026-08-06 that Samsung "will pay Netlist up to US$897 million in gross licensing fees over five years under a series of agreements that settle years of litigation," and Korea Times reported on 2026-11-02 that the USITC formally terminated its Samsung chip-patent probe after the settlement — a result confirmed on the record by the ITC's Federal Register notice in Inv. No. 337-TA-1472, issued 2026-10-06 (91 FR 64678), which recounts that Netlist and Samsung jointly moved to terminate on 2026-08-18, that the ALJ granted the motion on 2026-09-04, and that the Commission declined review. That notice is the single most useful public document for this case family because it lists the asserted patents — including the '523 patent at issue in Delaware — and records that Netlist withdrew claims of several patents before settlement. Communications Daily reported on 2026-10-08 that Google and Super Micro did not oppose the termination motion.

Reported numbers differ by outlet and by measure. The Korea Times and Digitimes frames track the $897M gross licensing ceiling that comes from Netlist's SEC filing (a $239M upfront fee plus up to $32.9M per quarter for 20 quarters). BusinessKorea reported on 2026-08-06 a headline figure of "approximately 1.3 trillion won (US$1 billion)" and added the deal's commercial legs — a supply arrangement worth up to $300M/year, $1.5B over five years, from Samsung's US sales subsidiary, and Samsung's purchase of 10 million Netlist shares for $1M. Sterne Kessler, Netlist's ITC counsel, said on 2026-08-10 the deal "could mean as much as $898 million in patent licensing fees," while IIPLA on 2026-08-15 gave ~$920.7M — a rounding/currency-conversion spread rather than a substantive disagreement. On the litigation backdrop, Reuters' Blake Brittain (2026-09-29) described Netlist as having settled Samsung "after winning $421 million in patent verdicts," which reconciles with Chosun Biz's itemization of $303M (2023) and $118M (2024) East Texas jury verdicts; an investor piece carried by Yahoo Finance noted Netlist shares rose 65.8% on the deal and cautioned that the quarterly fees are "revenue-formula based and may be adjusted or refunded."

Where reporting goes beyond the record — and where it errs. Korean trade press was careful to note the ITC outcome was procedural, not a merits win: Global Economic stated the 2026-10-06 vote was "not a win finding non-infringement" but an administrative termination by agreement, removing import-exclusion risk from North American data-center supply chains. By contrast, several syndicated language editions of the termination story (Sina via Zaker, SHTT) list Nvidia and Broadcom as respondents in the terminated investigation — that appears to conflate 337-TA-1472 (Samsung, Samsung Electronics America, Samsung Semiconductor, Google, Super Micro) with Netlist's separate September 2026 HBM complaint, which does name Nvidia and Broadcom. The ITC notice and Communications Daily both give the correct respondent list. IIPLA also frames Netlist as "a classic NPE," a characterization at odds with Netlist's self-description as an operating memory designer, and its assertion that "industry sources reported on June 16" appears to mistime an August deal.

The most legally substantive coverage of the parties' posture. IPWatchdog (Steve Brachmann, 2026-03-16) is the one piece I found that discusses this Delaware action directly: Netlist's March 2026 Director Review requests argued that Samsung improperly omitted Samsung Electronics America as a real party in interest, citing SEA's status as a co-plaintiff with Samsung in "a Delaware declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of those same patents." Samsung's March 12 response characterized SEA as a mere purchaser and said it was joined in Delaware "as a plaintiff in the declaratory judgment action … seeking to invalidate Netlist's patents." On the patent-validity side, IPWatchdog reported on 2026-09-02 that the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Netlist v. Micron affirming a PTAB obviousness holding on the '339 patent — noting that "Samsung later settled with Netlist and withdrew from the appeal, and Micron continued as the sole appellee," a concrete marker of how the settlement reshaped pending appeals. Related analysis appeared in IP Case Updates and [Legal500](https://www.legal500.com/intelligence/united-states/intellectual-property/federal-circuit-affirms-ptab-obviousness-finding-in-dram

Sources

• 삼성 美 ITC, 삼성전자 DRAM 특허침해 조사 종결 - 이비엔(EBN)뉴스센터
• Settlement Terminates Section 337 Investigation on DRAM Devices
• UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
• Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pu...
• 三星电子与Netlist和解后，美国终止专利调查
• 美国在三星电子与Netlist达成和解后终止对其专利侵权调查
• Samsung Ends Six-Year Patent Fight With Netlist - Samsung Ends Six-Year Patent Fight With Netlist
• Sterne Kessler Client Netlist Negotiates Five-Year Patent Alliance With Samsung - Washington, D
• NetlistとSamsung、AIメモリー特許紛争を5年ライセンス契約へ――HBM時代の知財収益化モデル | PatentRevenue
• DIGITIMES news archive
• MKS' Atotech and ESI to Showcase Advanced PCB Solutions at TPCA 2026
• Netlist

I'll research Samsung's counsel of record in this Delaware action. Let me run several targeted searches.

Good results. Let me verify the current counsel lineup, the Kirkland & Ellis presence, and the Covington withdrawal.

Now let me verify the individual attorneys' backgrounds and the Covington team's role.

I've hit my search budget, so I'll consolidate what the docket records, court opinions, and firm materials confirm. Everything below is grounded in retrieved sources; I flag the two items I could not fully verify.

---

Plaintiff representatives

Plaintiffs in this action: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung"). Note that the operative caption in D. Del. 1:21-cv-01453 lists only these two entities; a third Samsung entity, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA"), appears in Samsung's 2025–26 filing strings in this docket and is a named plaintiff in the related Delaware DJ actions (1:25-cv-00626, 1:25-cv-01371, 1:25-cv-01589), but is not a caption party here. Docket feed, 1:21-cv-01453

Two structural features matter for counsel-of-record purposes: (1) Samsung's Delaware local counsel (Morris Nichols) was constant from the 2021 complaint through dismissal, but (2) Samsung's national/lead team changed hands mid-case — Covington & Burling LLP carried the case from 2021 through 2025, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP was added via pro hac vice in November 2025 as the new lead trial team for the 2025–26 wave of Samsung–Netlist Delaware litigation.

---

1. Delaware local counsel — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE

---

2. Covington & Burling LLP — Samsung's national counsel, 2021–2025

Entered on the Delaware filings as "OF COUNSEL." All four are listed on Samsung's filings and the court's captions.

---

3. Kirkland & Ellis LLP — added as lead trial team, November 2025

Samsung moved for pro hac vice admission of nine Kirkland attorneys in this case on 2025-11-13 (fees paid 2025-11-13; order entered 2025-11-13 by Judge Hall), and Kirkland's withdrawal notices in 2026 are expressly "as counsel for Plaintiffs." Doc. 233 and PHV minute entries, Doc. 243. The same motion was filed in the related 2025 Delaware DJ actions and in E.D. Tex.

---

4. Attorneys and firms not on this docket (avoiding conflation)

• O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Daniel M. Petrocelli, Marc J. Pensabene, Ryan Yagura, Leah Godesky, Anton Metlitsky) and Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. (Ekwan E. Rhow) represent Samsung in the Central District of California JDLA case (8:20-cv-00993) and Samsung's Ninth Circuit appeal — not in Delaware. C.D. Cal. representation statement, C.D. Cal. MSJ notice
• Baker Botts L.L.P. (Michael Hawes, Eliot Williams, Theodore W. Chandler) appears for Samsung on the Federal Circuit appeal in Netlist v. Samsung (the IPR2022-00063 / '523 appeal), with MoloLamken LLP for Netlist. That is appellate counsel, not Delaware counsel of record. Fed. Cir. caption
• No in-house counsel appeared on the Delaware docket for Samsung. (A Samsung PTAB power of attorney elsewhere in the portfolio was signed by Eric Cha and Jordan Flournoy, but those signatures are from an unrelated Ancora IPR filing and are not appearances in this case.) IPR2021-00583 POA

---

Notes on completeness and sourcing

• Contradiction to flag with the case metadata: the metadata (and prior sections) describes this case as "stayed," with dismissal only presaged by the Aug. 5, 2026 settlement. The docket now shows it is actually resolved: Samsung filed a Stipulation of Dismissal on 2026-08-18 (Doc. 245), and Judge Jennifer L. Hall SO ORDERED dismissal with prejudice on 2026-08-20. CourtListener docket feed
• Caption/venue metadata: the case continues to be captioned under 1:21-cv-01453, but the judge initials migrated from RGA (Andrews) to JLH (Hall), consistent with prior sections; Samsung's 2025–26 filings are docketed as 1:21-cv-01453-JLH.
• Two items I could not fully verify before exhausting my search budget: (1) the firm and office of Alan M. Rabinowitz — he is a Samsung PHV admittee in this and the related 2025 cases, but I could not retrieve the motion text (Doc. 238) to confirm his firm; treat as provisional; and (2) the specific office locations of the Kirkland attorneys other than Arovas — the @kirkland.com addresses confirm the firm, but not the individual offices.
• Role-labeling caveat: "Lead counsel"/"of counsel"/"local counsel" for the non-Delaware attorneys reflects how they styled themselves on filings (Covington entered as "OF COUNSEL" on Delaware documents; the Kirkland group entered as PHV admittees). Morris Nichols's "LEAD ATTORNEY" designation on Rodger Smith is docket taxonomy (visible in the related 1:25-cv-01371 docket); for Blumenfeld and Raucci the label is my characterization based on their filing roles.
• Consistency with prior sections: this confirms the earlier "Defendant representatives" note that Netlist's Irell & Manella team and the Shaw Keller local counsel opposed a Samsung side whose Delaware counsel were Morris Nichols (Keller's and Blumenfeld's teams appearing opposite one another — both Wilmington IP boutiques) and whose national team was Covington & Burling, later joined by Kirkland & Ellis.

I'll research counsel for each defendant. Let me run several targeted searches.

Good results. Let me verify the specific firms for several attorneys.

I've completed my research. Note upfront: I exhausted my search budget while attempting final verification of a few names (notably the Washington, D.C.-based Google/Alphabet counsel and one possible firm change), so I flag those items as partially sourced. Everything else is grounded in court filings and firm materials.

Defendant representatives

The caption lists three defendants: Netlist, Inc. (defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff) and Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. (counterclaim-defendants, added via Netlist's amended counterclaims on 2022-09-12). Each has separate Delaware local counsel and separate national counsel.

---

1. Netlist, Inc. (Defendant / Counterclaim-Plaintiff)

Delaware local counsel — Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE

National / lead trial counsel — Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA (entered as "of counsel" on Delaware filings):

Later pro hac vice addition:

Irell's newsroom also states McKool Smith PC acted as co-counsel for Netlist in Netlist v. Samsung ("Impact Case of the Year," Apr. 2026); that co-counsel relationship is documented for the Texas litigation, and I did not find a corresponding McKool Smith appearance on the Delaware docket.

---

2. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. (Counterclaim-Defendants)

Delaware local counsel — Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE

National counsel — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (listed on the certificate of service in Google/Alphabet's Delaware filings):

---

Notes on completeness and sourcing

• No counsel appears to be missing: all three defendants were represented through the stay and up to the Aug. 2026 stipulated dismissal. Netlist's and Google's respective counsel are confirmed by signed filings and court-issued captions. 2022-08-01 opinion caption listing both sides' counsel
• In-house counsel: I found no in-house attorney appearances on the Delaware docket for any defendant. Netlist's public statements are made by CEO Chuck Hong and CFO Gail Sasaki, but neither appears as counsel of record here; I am not asserting any in-house counsel appearance.
• Role labels: "Local counsel" for Keller/DiBenedetto (Shaw Keller) and Farnan (Richards Layton) is inferred from the D. Del. local-rule practice of using Delaware-bar firms as filing counsel, plus the fact that Keller is docket-flagged "LEAD ATTORNEY" — the labels are my characterization, not docket taxonomy, for the non-Delaware attorneys (who appear as "of counsel" on filings rather than as pro hac vice on the Delaware docket, except Yonan).
• Two items I could not verify before exhausting my search budget: (1) the current firm of David A. Perlson (Quinn Emanuel vs. Hogan Lovells), and (2) the firm/office confirmation for Acharya, Newton, and Shen. Treat those as provisional.
• Contradiction to flag against prior sections: the previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section lists Alice J. Ahn as being with Covington & Burling in this case; the docket shows she later left and that a notice to remove her as co-counsel was filed — consistent with the section's own caveat that she moved to WilmerHale, but worth noting the withdrawal. Also consistent with prior sections, the case caption migrated from -RGA (Judge Andrews) to -JLH (Judge Jennifer L. Hall), which is how the docket styles counsel entries by late 2025.