Micron to Appeal Netlist Patent Infringement Verdict

Jurors in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reached a verdict on Thursday, May 23, determining that certain Micron semiconductor-memory products violate two Netlist patents related to memory module performance enhancement technology. The jury set damages at a staggering US$445 million. However, the jurors also concluded that Micron's infringement of the patents was willful, potentially leading to the judge tripling the award. This development raises the specter of Micron facing a hefty US$1.3 billion payout to the HBM patent holder.

Micron swiftly responded to the verdict with a statement expressing disagreement. The company highlighted that the majority of the damages awarded were based on Netlist's '912 patent, which had been previously invalidated by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over a month before the trial. Micron's evidence presented during the trial aimed to demonstrate that the company did not infringe either of the patents asserted by Netlist.

Netlist's '417 patent, accounting for less than 5 percent of the damages, is also under scrutiny by the patent office following indications of potential invalidity. Micron announced its intention to appeal the jury's decision and defend the US Patent Office's ruling on the '912 patent's invalidity. The legal battle between the two companies seems far from over as they navigate the complexities of patent law and intellectual property rights.

Netlist had previously acknowledged the PTAB's decision regarding the '912 patent on April 25, coinciding with the release of the company's 1Q24 financial results. In response to the ruling, Netlist CEO CK Hong expressed disappointment, emphasizing the patent's history of validation through various re-examinations and reviews. The company remains steadfast in its commitment to defending its intellectual property rights and pursuing fair licensing agreements for its innovative technologies.

The legal proceedings between Micron and Netlist are likely to be protracted, with potential appeals and reviews extending over months or even years. Challenges to PTAB declarations could lead to lengthy processes, and appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals may further prolong the resolution of the dispute. Both companies are gearing up for a protracted legal battle as they seek to protect their interests and uphold their respective positions in the ongoing patent infringement case.