SanDisk Corporation v. IPValue Management, Inc. et al.

The case SanDisk Corporation v. IPValue Management, Inc. et al. (5:25-cv-02389) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 7, 2025. It began with SanDisk filing a declaratory judgment action, which was met with counterclaims from IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd. (LFMS) alleging patent infringement. The case has since been resolved as part of a global settlement between the parties. The assigned judge for the case was Judge P. Casey Pitts, with Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins also involved in discovery matters.

SanDisk Corporation is a prominent American multinational semiconductor company based in Milpitas, California, specializing in the design and manufacture of flash memory products such as memory cards, USB flash drives, and solid-state drives (SSDs). SanDisk was a subsidiary of Western Digital Corporation but was spun off as a new public company in 2025, focusing purely on flash memory and solid-state storage. Defendant IPValue Management, Inc. is an intellectual property (IP) and patent monetization advisory firm, founded in 2001 and headquartered in Santa Clara, California. IPValue commercializes patents in areas including hardware, software, communications, and semiconductors, aiming to generate revenue for its clients through licensing and patent sales. Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd. (LFMS) is an affiliate of IPValue Management, forming part of the IPValue Management Group. LFMS acquired a portfolio of over 500 worldwide patents and pending applications primarily related to memory technology from Cypress Semiconductor, which was acquired by Infineon Technologies in 2020. Longitude Licensing Ltd. and IPValue Management, Inc. are responsible for licensing this portfolio. The accused products in the counterclaim were SanDisk's various devices containing 3D NAND flash memory, including embedded flash, SSDs, and USB flash drives.

The litigation involved at least five patents asserted by IPValue and Longitude. From the case metadata, two patents were specifically named: U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240 and U.S. Patent No. 6,963,505. U.S. Patent No. 6,963,505 is directed to a "method, circuit, and system for determining a reference voltage," which is relevant to power management infrastructure in semiconductor devices. U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240 (referred to as the "'240 patent") was also subject to an inter partes review (IPR) petition, though a detailed technical sketch is not readily available from the provided search results. The case is notable as it represents a common pattern of patent assertion entities like IPValue and its affiliates, such as Longitude, asserting portfolios acquired from major technology companies against operating companies in the semiconductor and data storage industries. IPValue's strategy often involves licensing negotiations, with litigation being a "litigate last" approach when agreements cannot be reached. The resolution of this case as part of a global settlement highlights the ongoing challenges faced by major flash memory manufacturers in navigating extensive patent portfolios held by NPEs. This case also had parallel IPR proceedings, with SanDisk filing an IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 and the defendants filing an IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for SanDisk Corporation v. IPValue Management, Inc. et al.

The patent infringement litigation, SanDisk Corporation v. IPValue Management, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02389, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, concluded with a settlement and dismissal.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-03-07): SanDisk Corporation initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement against IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. SanDisk sought a declaration of non-infringement for five patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,929,240 and 6,963,505.
• Counterclaims: IPValue Management and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions (collectively "IPValue") subsequently filed counterclaims against both SanDisk and Western Digital Corporation, alleging infringement of the five patents at issue.
  • It's noted that SanDisk's corporate parent, Western Digital Corporation, was also involved in a related case filed by IPValue Management, Inc. in the Central District of California (8:25-cv-00119), which also involved a stipulation of dismissal.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss (filed by SanDisk/Western Digital for '505 patent): SanDisk and Western Digital filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim specifically concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,963,505.
• Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (2025-10-07): Judge P. Casey Pitts denied SanDisk and Western Digital's motion to dismiss the counterclaim regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,963,505.

Discovery Milestones

• Discovery Stay (2025-09-29): The parties agreed to a stay of technical discovery as to U.S. Patent No. 6,963,505, pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss concerning that patent. For the other patents in suit, infringement contentions were to be served by September 30, 2025. Following this agreement, a scheduled discovery conference for October 15, 2025, was vacated.
• Plaintiff's Stipulation Regarding Invalidity Contentions (2025-10-29): SanDisk filed a stipulation regarding invalidity contentions, referencing parallel IPR proceedings.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on patents relevant to the litigation:

• IPR2025-01281 (filed 2025-09-02): SanDisk Technologies, Inc. (Petitioner) filed an IPR petition against Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. (Respondent) challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365. This IPR proceeding was terminated as settled on February 19, 2026, via a pre-institution settlement.
• IPR2025-01283 (filed 2025-10-14): Defendants (IPValue/Longitude) filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,929,240, one of the patents initially listed by SanDisk in its declaratory judgment complaint.

The existence of these IPRs influenced the litigation, with SanDisk stipulating that if the Board instituted IPR2025-01283, it would not pursue certain invalidity grounds in the district court case.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment

• Global Settlement and License Agreement (2026-01-21): IPValue Management, Inc. announced that it granted SanDisk Corporation a worldwide, nonexclusive patent license to a patent portfolio held by IPValue's affiliate Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd., which originated from Cypress Semiconductor. This agreement, along with concurrent licenses to other IPValue portfolios, resolved all outstanding patent disputes between the parties.
• Stipulation of Dismissal (filed by 2026-01-20 / case closed 2026-01-16): A stipulation of dismissal was filed in the district court case. The case was officially closed on January 16, 2026. The IPR proceedings related to the patents were also terminated due to settlement.

In the case of SanDisk Corporation v. IPValue Management, Inc. et al., the plaintiff SanDisk Corporation was represented by attorneys from Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.

The counsel of record for SanDisk Corporation include:

• Ajay S. Krishnan - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Krishnan is a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP and has extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the technology sector. He has represented clients in various high-stakes intellectual property disputes.
• Ryan K. Wong - Counsel
  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Wong is an attorney at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, focusing on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
• Erin E. Meyer - Counsel
  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Meyer is an attorney at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, with experience in patent litigation.
• Eric B. Hanson - Counsel
  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Hanson is an attorney at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, involved in patent and other complex litigation matters.
• Stephanie J. Goldberg - Counsel
  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Goldberg is an attorney at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, with experience in intellectual property disputes.

Additionally, in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings involving SanDisk Technologies, Inc. (a real party-in-interest with SanDisk Corporation), Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP represented the petitioner. While not directly counsel of record in the district court case for the initial complaint, their involvement in the parallel IPRs is noteworthy.

• Harper Batts - Lead Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Menlo Park, CA.
  • Experience: Batts is designated as lead counsel in IPR2025-01281, a proceeding related to one of the patents at issue in the district court case.
• Chris Ponder - Back-up Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Menlo Park, CA.
• Jeffrey Liang - Back-up Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Menlo Park, CA.
• R. Jonathan DeFosse - Back-up Counsel (in IPR proceedings, pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Menlo Park, CA.

SanDisk also has in-house intellectual property counsel, such as David Dutcher, who serves as Vice President and Chief IP & Licensing Counsel at SanDisk. While not typically listed as counsel of record in court filings for specific cases, in-house counsel play a crucial role in overseeing and directing litigation strategy.

In SanDisk Corporation v. IPValue Management, Inc. et al., the defendants, IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd., were represented by counsel from multiple firms.

Defense Counsel:

• Neil A. Rubin (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Fountain LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Rubin is listed as counsel for plaintiffs in a related case involving IPValue Management, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation (Case No. 8:25-cv-00119). He is also noted as Respondent Counsel in IPR2025-01281.
• Brian D. Ledahl (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fountain LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Ledahl was added as an attorney to party IPValue Management, Inc. in a related case, IPValue Management, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation (Case No. 8:25-cv-00119).

While a comprehensive list of all counsel for the defendants is not immediately available from the provided search snippets, Neil A. Rubin and Brian D. Ledahl from Fountain LLP are identified as counsel representing IPValue Management, Inc. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions, Ltd. in the context of this and related proceedings. It's common for patent litigation to involve a larger team, including local counsel, but these individuals are explicitly named in the search results regarding counsel for the defendants. Without direct access to the full PACER docket for this specific case (5:25-cv-02389), a complete list of all defense attorneys and their specific roles (e.g., local counsel) cannot be definitively provided.