Netlist v. Micron: DDR5 Memory Patent Case Transferred to Delaware
Netlist, Inc. filed suit against Micron Technology in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US12373366B2 over DDR5 dual in-line memory modules. After 248 days, Judge Gilstrap ordered an interdistrict transfer to the District of Delaware, where the case continues as 1:26-cv-00362.
Netlist pursues Micron over DDR5 DIMMs — venue shifts to Delaware
Netlist, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on 28 July 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00749) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The sole asserted patent is US12373366B2 (application no. US17/582797). The accused products are DDR5 dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs), including Micron's DDR5 RDIMMs and other products with similar structures and features.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Transferred'. The docket order states that an interdistrict transfer to the District of Delaware was entered on 2 April 2026, with the case reopened in Delaware as 1:26-cv-00362, filed 1 April 2026. The Eastern District of Texas proceeding is closed; no merits adjudication occurred in that court.
The case reached the transfer stage within 248 days of filing — consistent with a venue challenge resolved before substantive patent litigation commenced. What drove the transfer decision, and the full procedural posture of the Delaware proceeding, are not disclosed in the available E.D. Texas record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Transferred in 248 days
248 days from filing to transfer order — resolved at venue stage before merits
US12373366B2 — DDR5 dual in-line memory module technology
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating DDR5 DIMMs — including RDIMMs, LRDIMMs, or modules with architecturally similar structures — should evaluate exposure to US12373366B2. With Netlist actively asserting this patent against Micron in federal court, the risk of parallel or follow-on enforcement actions against other DDR5 market participants is a legitimate concern. This is particularly relevant for server OEMs, hyperscale operators sourcing DDR5 modules, and fabless designers building DDR5-compatible memory controllers.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records an interdistrict transfer to the District of Delaware, entered 2 April 2026, with the matter reopened as case 1:26-cv-00362. This is a procedural venue disposition — no claim construction, infringement finding, or validity ruling was issued by the Eastern District of Texas. The merits of the US12373366B2 infringement claims against Micron's DDR5 DIMMs remain entirely open and will be adjudicated in Delaware.
Case moves to District of Delaware — litigation continues
An interdistrict transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or § 1406 closes the originating docket and reopens the matter in the transferee court. The Eastern District of Texas case (2:25-cv-00749) is formally terminated; all future proceedings will occur in the District of Delaware as case 1:26-cv-00362. No merits ruling was made in Texas.
Venue change — litigation ongoingDelaware is a well-established forum for semiconductor patent disputes
The District of Delaware handles a high volume of complex patent cases, including semiconductor and memory technology disputes. Transfer to Delaware typically signals that the transferee court was found to have a stronger connection to the parties or the accused products. Micron is incorporated in Delaware, which may have been a factor, though the specific grounds for transfer are not disclosed in the available record.
D. Delaware — 1:26-cv-00362Litigation restarts under Delaware rules and docket schedule
The transferred case will proceed from its current procedural posture in Delaware. Prior filings, claim constructions, and discovery taken in Texas typically carry forward, though the Delaware court may set its own scheduling order. No trial date, claim construction ruling, or damages position from the Texas docket is disclosed in the available record.
Merits adjudication pendingUS12373366B2 remains live and enforceable — risk persists for DDR5 makers
Transfer does not affect the validity or enforceability of the asserted patent. US12373366B2 continues to assert coverage over DDR5 DIMMs. Companies designing, manufacturing, or selling DDR5 RDIMMs or modules with similar structures should treat this patent as an active litigation risk, now pending in Delaware.
Patent risk — DDR5 DIMM sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Netlist, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Micron Technology, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Blair A. Silver | Attorney | Counsel for Netlist, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason G. Sheasby | Attorney | Counsel for Netlist, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Netlist, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel Franklin Baxter | Attorney | Counsel for Netlist, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Irell & Manella LLP | Law Firm | Representing Netlist, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Netlist, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKool Smith PC (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Netlist, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jared B. Bobrow | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy Jason Lang | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kim Bendersky Goldberg | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Robert Rueckheim | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryuk Park | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah Kate Mullins | Attorney | Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | King & Spalding LLP | Law Firm | Representing Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at Law | Law Firm | Representing Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Menlo Park) | Law Firm | Representing Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP (San Francisco) | Law Firm | Representing Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Law Firm | Representing Micron Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the DDR5 memory patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence on Netlist's DDR5 portfolio, Micron's memory IP posture, and filing trends around DIMM architecture — derived from this case.
Netlist's DDR5 patent filing activity signals continued enforcement risk
Netlist has built a focused memory patent portfolio over multiple DRAM generations. The assertion of US12373366B2 — a recently granted patent covering DDR5 DIMM structures — suggests active prosecution of DDR5-generation IP. Monitoring Netlist's continuation and divisional filing activity around US17/582797 is advisable for any company with DDR5 DIMM exposure.
Netlist DDR5 portfolioDDR5 RDIMM architecture is a high-density patent filing zone
DDR5 registered DIMM architecture — including signal integrity, on-DIMM buffering, and power management — has attracted intensive patent filings from major DRAM producers and IP specialists. Understanding the claim density around DDR5 RDIMM structures is critical for companies designing next-generation server memory subsystems or sourcing DDR5 modules.
DDR5 RDIMM filing trendsMicron's defensive DDR5 patent position in context
Micron Technology holds a substantial DRAM and NAND patent portfolio. Analysing Micron's own DDR5-related filings — particularly around RDIMM structures and on-module logic — can reveal potential design-around paths and indicate the strength of Micron's defensive IP position as the Delaware case progresses.
Micron DDR5 IP positionAdjacent DDR5 innovation areas outside the current claim dispute
As patent enforcement concentrates on DDR5 RDIMM structural features, adjacent areas — including CXL memory interfaces, DDR5 LRDIMM power management, and in-memory compute architectures — may represent lower-risk innovation opportunities for R&D teams seeking to differentiate without crossing into the asserted claim space around US12373366B2.
DDR5 white-space opportunitiesSimilar DDR5 and DRAM patent infringement cases in federal court
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving DDR5 and DRAM memory technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas and District of Delaware.
What this transfer signals for the DDR5 memory IP landscape
Netlist's enforcement campaign against Micron shifts to Delaware — a court with deep semiconductor patent experience.
Venue transfer to Delaware concentrates DDR5 patent risk in one forum
With the case now in the District of Delaware, Micron and other DDR5 DIMM producers face litigation in a court with substantial experience in complex memory technology disputes. Companies with exposure to DDR5 DIMM product lines should monitor the Delaware docket closely for claim construction and scheduling orders.
Netlist's serial enforcement posture makes US12373366B2 a portfolio-wide risk
Netlist has pursued multiple defendants in the memory sector. The assertion of US12373366B2 against Micron's DDR5 RDIMMs suggests the patent may be positioned as a broad enforcement asset across DDR5-compatible products. R&D teams developing next-generation DIMM architectures should include this patent in freedom-to-operate reviews.
Netlist v Micron — key questions answered
The case was transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to the District of Delaware on 2 April 2026, and reopened as case 1:26-cv-00362. No merits ruling was issued in Texas. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Transferred.'
Netlist asserted US12373366B2 (application number US17/582797) against Micron Technology. The accused products are DDR5 dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs), including Micron's DDR5 RDIMMs and products with similar structures and features.
The docket records an interdistrict transfer to the District of Delaware entered 2 April 2026. The specific grounds for the transfer — whether under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or § 1406, and the basis for the venue challenge — are not detailed in the available public record from the Eastern District of Texas.
Following transfer from E.D. Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00749), the case was opened in the District of Delaware as Case No. 1:26-cv-00362, filed 1 April 2026.
No. A venue transfer is a procedural disposition and does not affect the validity or enforceability of the asserted patent. US12373366B2 remains in force. The infringement claims against Micron's DDR5 DIMMs will be adjudicated on the merits in the District of Delaware.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.