Palisade Technologies vs. Micron: Dismissed With Prejudice in SSD & Memory Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Palisade Technologies, LLP v. Micron Technology, Inc. |
| Case Number | 7:24-cv-00262 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Duration | Oct 2024 – Jan 2026 1 year 3 months |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Loss – Dismissed With Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Micron’s Crucial X9 Portable SSD, Micron 7450 Pro, and LPDDR5 memory modules |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity that pursues licensing and litigation strategies based on its IP portfolio, with a common venue selection in the Western District of Texas.
🛡️ Defendant
One of the world’s largest producers of DRAM, NAND flash, and solid-state storage solutions, known for a robust internal IP portfolio and sophisticated patent defenses.
Patents at Issue
This case involved five U.S. patents asserted by Palisade Technologies, covering innovations in memory architecture and solid-state storage technologies:
- • US8996838B1 — Covering memory circuit design
- • US9524974B1 — Relating to data storage interfacing
- • US9281314B1 — On semiconductor architectures
- • US8327051B2 — For memory circuit design enhancements
- • US8148962B2 — Addressing data storage interfacing methods
Developing memory or SSD products?
Check if your technology might infringe these or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered the **dismissal of all infringement claims** brought by Palisade Technologies, LLP against Micron Technology, Inc., **with prejudice**. This means Palisade is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims in any forum. Micron’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving their right to reassert them if necessary. No damages award or injunctive relief was reported, consistent with a pre-trial resolution.
Legal Significance
This outcome reinforces that a robust early defense strategy, often combining claim construction challenges, IPR petitions, and invalidity contentions, can lead to a complete extinguishment of plaintiff’s claims. Patents covering memory architecture and SSD controller technology frequently face narrowing constructions that limit infringement reads, and the threat of parallel PTAB proceedings can materially influence a plaintiff’s decision to exit litigation.
Litigation Timeline & Procedural History
The complaint was filed on **October 16, 2024**, in the **Western District of Texas**. The case closed on **January 26, 2026**, yielding a total duration of **467 days** at the district court level. This relatively swift resolution, without a publicly reported trial, suggests a negotiated settlement or dispositive motions prompted the voluntary dismissal of claims.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff’s counsel included David T. DeZern, Jonathan H. Rastegar, Mark D. Siegmund, Patrick J. Conroy, Ryan Griffin, T. William Kennedy Jr., and William D. Ellerman, from **Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC** and **Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC**. Defendant’s counsel assembled a formidable ten-attorney team: Bradley M. Berg, Corey Stewart, Darryl Adams, Jason Lang, John Kappos, Khanh Nguyen Leon, Paige Hardy, Patric M. Reinbold, Timothy S. Durst, and Xin-Yi Zhou, from **O’Melveny & Myers LLP**, **Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP**, and **Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC**.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks and defensive strategies in semiconductor memory and storage design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation for patent holders and accused infringers.
- Assess the impact of early, multi-pronged defense strategies.
- Understand claim construction and IPR risks for memory patents.
- Identify best practices for R&D documentation.
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Strong Defense Achieved
Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice
5 Asserted Patents
Covering SSD & LPDDR5 technology
Counterclaims Preserved
Micron retains strategic optionality
✅ Key Takeaways from Palisade v. Micron
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims is a signature outcome of aggressive early defense strategy.
Search related defense strategies →Five-patent portfolios covering memory architecture face heightened IPR and claim construction risk against large semiconductor defendants.
Explore claim construction analytics →For R&D Teams
Conduct FTO analysis for LPDDR5 memory components and portable/enterprise SSD products before commercial launch.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Document design choices and prior art references contemporaneously to support future non-infringement and invalidity defenses.
Learn about robust IP documentation →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.