NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON 

SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., MICRON 

TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC,

Petitioners

______________________

2024-107

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:22-

cv-00203-JRG-RSP, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (collectively, 

“Micron”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Texas to stay this patent infringement action pending final 

resolution of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings involving the asserted patent claims. Micron also moves to

stay the upcoming trial pending this court’s consideration 

Case: 24-107 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2024
2 IN RE: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.

of the petition. Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) opposes. We deny 

the petition and the motion. 

Netlist brought this suit in June 2022, seeking relief

based on Micron’s alleged infringement of the asserted patent claims. In May 2023, Micron moved to stay the litigation pending resolution of instituted IPR proceedings. On 

January 3, 2024—with less than three weeks before trial 

was set to begin—the magistrate judge finally issued a report and recommendation denying the motion based on the 

familiar factors relevant to a stay.1 See Murata Mach. USA 

v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In 

particular, the magistrate judge gave significant weight to

Netlist and Micron being direct competitors in the marketplace and that a lengthy stay of the type requested by Micron would unduly prejudice Netlist. 

Micron now petitions us to direct the district court to 

grant its motion. Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary 

situations.” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas 

Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). The petitioner must: (1) show that it has a clear and indisputable 

right to relief; (2) show it does not have any other adequate 

method of obtaining relief; and (3) convince the court that 

the “writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney 

v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted). 

We are troubled by the district court’s delay in resolving Micron’s stay motion. At the same time, we are confronting a situation in which Micron, the party seeking a 

stay, petitioned for this court’s intervention only less than 

three weeks before trial is set to begin. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we cannot say that Micron 

 

1 Although the magistrate judge has issued a report 

and recommendation, the district court judge has yet to resolve the May 2023 stay motion.

Case: 24-107 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2024
IN RE: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3

has shown entitlement to the extraordinary relief of mandamus. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion to 

stay are denied.

January 12, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

 

Case: 24-107 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2024