Katana Silicon v. Micron Technology: Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Katana Silicon Technologies asserted three semiconductor device and wiring substrate patents against Micron Technology and affiliated entities. After 919 days, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits — leaving both the preemption question and an $8 million bond dispute unresolved.
Jurisdiction kills the appeal before any patent merits are reached
Katana Silicon Technologies, LLC filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 13, 2023, challenging an earlier district court proceeding involving Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Micron Technology Texas, LLC, and the State of Idaho. Three patents were in dispute — USRE038806E, US6731013B2, and US6352879B1 — all relating to semiconductor device manufacturing and wiring substrate technology. The accused products included semiconductor devices and package stack semiconductor devices consistent with Micron’s core memory and logic product lines.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on December 18, 2025, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court’s ruling is explicitly procedural: it expressly declined to address the substantive questions of preemption and whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing an $8 million bond condition. Because the dismissal is jurisdictional, no appellate merits ruling was issued in favour of either party, and the underlying patent infringement claims were not adjudicated at this level.
A 919-day appellate timeline without a merits outcome is commercially significant — it suggests the jurisdictional defect may have been identified relatively late in briefing or following oral argument, prolonging uncertainty for both sides. The public record does not disclose why jurisdiction was found to be lacking, nor whether Katana Silicon intends to refile or pursue alternative routes. The unresolved $8 million bond question may also signal ongoing district court proceedings that could re-emerge.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 919 days
919 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal, which typically resolves in 12–18 months
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: what the ruling means for both parties
Jurisdictional dismissal: no merits decided
A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction means the Federal Circuit determined it had no authority to hear the appeal — not that either party was right or wrong on the patent merits. The court expressly left open preemption and the $8 million bond abuse-of-discretion question. Jurisdictional dismissals typically arise from defects in finality of the appealed order, standing issues, or improper timing of the notice of appeal.
No merits adjudicationKatana Silicon loses its appellate vehicle — for now
For Katana Silicon, the dismissal forecloses this particular appellate path without any ruling in its favour. The patents-in-suit — USRE038806E, US6731013B2, and US6352879B1 — remain neither validated nor invalidated at the appellate level. Katana may need to return to the district court to cure the jurisdictional defect before a further appeal becomes available, though the public record is silent on that intent.
Appeal path closedMicron avoids a merits ruling — but exposure persists
Micron and its affiliates benefit from the dismissal in the short term: no appellate finding of infringement, no ruling on preemption, and no binding guidance on the $8 million bond. However, a jurisdictional dismissal does not extinguish the underlying infringement claims. If Katana Silicon successfully reframes or refiles, Micron’s exposure on the semiconductor device and wiring substrate patents remains live and unresolved.
Underlying claims unresolvedSemiconductor IP uncertainty extended, not resolved
For the semiconductor sector, this outcome extends rather than resolves IP uncertainty around wiring substrate and package stack device patents. Companies operating in advanced packaging and memory manufacturing — areas directly covered by the asserted patents — cannot treat this dismissal as clearing the landscape. The three patents remain enforceable absent a validity ruling, and the litigation posture suggests continued enforcement risk from Katana Silicon.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Katana Silicon Technologies, LLC | Company | Semiconductor IP licensing entity — holder of USRE038806E, US6731013B2, and US6352879B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Micron Technology, Inc. | Company | Micron Technology, Inc. — global DRAM, NAND flash, and semiconductor memory manufacturer, Boise, IdahoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | State of Idaho | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Micron Technology Texas, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Omer Salik | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott W. Breedlove | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carter Arnett PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amanda Tessar | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Dufresne | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Irvin Tietz | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s disposition — ‘we dismiss Appellants’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction’ — is a pure procedural termination. By explicitly stating that it ‘does not reach’ preemption or the $8 million bond abuse-of-discretion question, the court signals that the jurisdictional defect was outcome-determinative and no substantive review was warranted. This phrasing confirms that the merits of Katana Silicon’s infringement claims and Micron’s defences remain entirely open at the appellate level. The underlying district court record is unaffected by this appellate dismissal.
USRE038806E, US6731013B2 & US6352879B1 — Semiconductor Device and Wiring Substrate Patents
The three patents in suit span semiconductor device manufacturing and interconnect substrate technology. USRE038806E is a reissued patent — meaning the USPTO granted a corrected or broadened version of an original patent — which can extend claim coverage beyond the original grant. US6731013B2 covers wiring substrate and semiconductor device architectures relevant to advanced packaging, while US6352879B1 addresses semiconductor device fabrication methods and package stack configurations. Application dates for these patents suggest coverage of foundational packaging and interconnect techniques that remain commercially relevant in contemporary memory and logic products.
Wiring substrate and package stack semiconductor patents occupy a strategically important position in the IP landscape because advanced packaging — including 2.5D and 3D integration — has become a primary differentiator in high-bandwidth memory and AI accelerator products. Micron’s product lines in DRAM and NAND directly intersect with these technology domains. The presence of a reissue patent (USRE038806E) alongside two original grants suggests a deliberate enforcement portfolio targeting broad manufacturing and assembly methods, raising the risk profile for any company producing or sourcing advanced semiconductor packages.
Should your team run an FTO against USRE038806E, US6731013B2, and US6352879B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing semiconductor devices that incorporate wiring substrates, package stack architectures, or advanced interconnect methods should treat these three patents as active FTO concerns. The reissue status of USRE038806E in particular warrants careful claim mapping — reissue claims may reach products not covered by the original patent. Fabless chip designers sourcing advanced packages, OSATs, and memory module manufacturers are among the product categories most directly implicated.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map claim language from USRE038806E, US6731013B2, and US6352879B1 against your product specifications and manufacturing process descriptions. Eureka surfaces prior art, identifies claim limitations, and flags related continuation or reissue activity that could expand the enforcement perimeter — delivering a structured FTO report that legal and engineering teams can act on together, before a product reaches the market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE038806E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit semiconductor device patent appeals and NPE enforcement cases
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving semiconductor device, wiring substrate, and advanced packaging patents — including comparable NPE enforcement actions and jurisdictional dismissals.
What this case signals for the semiconductor IP enforcement landscape
A jurisdictional dismissal after nearly three years leaves major questions open — and raises the stakes for Micron’s next exposure point.
Jurisdictional dismissals reset the clock without resolving exposure
This outcome is not a win for either party on the merits. Companies facing NPE assertions in semiconductor device technology should not treat a jurisdictional dismissal as confirmation that the patent holder’s case is weak. The three asserted patents survive this appeal intact, and refiling or district court continuation remains possible.
The $8M bond signal: courts may be managing NPE litigation economics
The unresolved $8 million bond requirement suggests the district court may have imposed a financial condition on the litigation’s continuation. This is consistent with emerging judicial practice of using bond requirements to manage perceived NPE litigation risk — a tactic increasingly relevant for semiconductor IP defendants facing assertion campaigns.
Katana v Micron — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed Case No. 23-2007 for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits. The court did not specify the precise jurisdictional defect in the available public record, but such dismissals typically arise from issues with the finality of the appealed order, timing of the notice of appeal, or standing. The $8 million bond and preemption questions were expressly left unresolved.
Katana Silicon asserted three patents: USRE038806E (a reissued semiconductor device manufacturing patent), US6731013B2 (covering wiring substrate and semiconductor device structures), and US6352879B1 (covering semiconductor device fabrication and package stack configurations). The accused products included semiconductor devices and package stack semiconductor devices.
No. A jurisdictional dismissal means the court did not reach the merits of the case. USRE038806E, US6731013B2, and US6352879B1 were neither invalidated nor found infringed at the appellate level. The patents remain in force, and Katana Silicon’s ability to assert them in future proceedings is not foreclosed by this dismissal.
The State of Idaho was listed as a co-defendant alongside Micron Technology entities. The public record does not fully explain the basis for Idaho’s inclusion, but it may relate to state-level interests connected to Micron’s Idaho-based operations. The presence of a state defendant can introduce sovereign immunity considerations under the Eleventh Amendment, which may have contributed to the jurisdictional complexity that led to the appeal’s dismissal.
Reissue patents are granted by the USPTO when the original patent contained errors or when the applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the original claims. USRE038806E is a reissued version of an earlier semiconductor device manufacturing patent, meaning its claims may cover a broader scope than the original grant. This expanded claim coverage can increase infringement exposure for manufacturers of advanced semiconductor packages and is a key consideration in any FTO analysis for this technology domain.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.