Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.
Infringement action filed 9 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 17 Jun 2026, with US11386024B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case consolidated.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11386024B2
- Application no.
- US16/680060
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-01122
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Jennifer L. Hall
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 9 Oct 2023 – 17 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 982 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Consolidated
- Products & marks
- DDR4 LRDIMM DDR4 RDIMM memory modules · DDR5 LRDIMM · RDIMM · SODIMM · UDIMM memory modules
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Memory module having an open-drain output for parity error and for training sequences
According to certain embodiments, a memory module is operable with a memory controller of a host system. The memory module includes a module controller configurable to receive address and control signals from the memory controller, and dynamic random access memory elements configurable to communicate data signals with the memory controller in accordance with the address and control signals. The module controller has an open-drain output and is configurable to drive the open-drain output with a first signal to indicate a parity error having occurred when the memory module is being accessed for a normal memory read or write operation. The module controller is further configurable to drive the open drain output with a second signal related to one or more training sequences when the memory module performs operations associated with the one or more training sequences and not associated with any normal memory read or write operations.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 12 Jul 2022
- Earliest priority
- 12 Jun 2009
- Est. expiry
- 14 Jun 2030
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2025-00001 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LEE, HYUN
- Classification
- G06F12/00G06F13/16G11C5/04G11C7/10G06F9/445G06F13/24G06F3/06G06F11/10G11C29/52G06F12/06G11C5/00G11C16/26G11C29/00G11C29/44
- Prosecution counsel
- USCH Law, PC
- Examiner
- CHERY, MARDOCHEE
Parties of record
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alice J. Ahn · Brian Nester · Jack B. Blumenfeld · Peter A. Swanson · Rodger Dallery Smith II · Thomas Garten
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- Also named
- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. · Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Netlist, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06F12/00G06F13/16G11C5/04G11C7/10
- Counsel
- Emily DiBenedetto · Karen Elizabeth Keller
- Firm
- Shaw Keller LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alice J. Ahn | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Brian Nester | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Jack B. Blumenfeld | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Peter A. Swanson | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Rodger Dallery Smith II | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Thomas Garten | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Emily DiBenedetto | Netlist, Inc. | Defendant |
| Karen Elizabeth Keller | Netlist, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“At Wilmington, this 17th day of June 2026: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case and related case No. 24-614.”
Case 1:23-cv-01122 · D. Del. · closed 17 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:23-cv-01122?
1:23-cv-01122 is a patent infringement action brought by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. against Netlist, Inc., filed on 9 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 17 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-01122?
US11386024B2 (“Memory module having an open-drain output for parity error and for training sequences”), assigned to NETLIST, INC., currently active. The record also lists DDR4 LRDIMM DDR4 RDIMM memory modules, DDR5 LRDIMM, RDIMM, SODIMM and UDIMM memory modules.
How was case 1:23-cv-01122 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case consolidated. The termination text reads: “At Wilmington, this 17th day of June 2026: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case and related case No. 24-614.”
How long did case 1:23-cv-01122 take?
982 calendar days, from filing on 9 Oct 2023 to closure on 17 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-01122?
Chief Judge Jennifer L. Hall presided. Alice J. Ahn, Brian Nester, Jack B. Blumenfeld, Peter A. Swanson, Rodger Dallery Smith II and Thomas Garten are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Samsung Electronics. Emily DiBenedetto and Karen Elizabeth Keller appear for defendant Netlist.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-01122 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.