IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

NETLIST, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR 

PRODUCTS, INC., AND MICRON 

TECHNOLOGY TEXAS LLC, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action 2:23-cv-00628

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

1. Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”), by its undersigned counsel, for its Complaint 

against defendants Micron Technology Inc. (“Micron Technology”), Micron Semiconductor 

Products, Inc. (“Micron Semiconductor”), and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (“Micron Texas”) 

(collectively, “Micron” or “Defendants”), states as follows, with knowledge as to its own acts, and 

on information and belief as to all other matters:

2. Netlist has filed suit against Defendants in the Eastern District of Texas alleging 

infringement of the following patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,860,506 (the “’506 Patent,” Ex. 1), 

10,949,339 (the “’339 Patent,” Ex. 2), 11,016,918 (the “’918 Patent,” Ex. 3), 11,232,054 (the “’054 

Patent,” Ex. 4), 8,787,060 (the “’060 Patent,” Ex. 5), and 9,318,160 (the “’160 Patent,” Ex. 6), 

7,619,912 (the “’912 Patent,” Ex. 7), 11,093,417 (the “’417 Patent,” Ex. 8), and 9,858,215 (the 

“’215 patent,” Ex. 9) (collectively, the “E.D. Texas Patents”). 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 904
- 2 -

3. As explained below, Micron has used a state statute passed in its home state of 

Idaho to harass Netlist and impose onerous burdens and risks on Netlist’s free exercise of its patent 

and speech rights, including Netlist’s exercise of those rights in patent litigation brought in the 

federal district courts in Texas. It is just a matter of time before Micron does it as to the E.D. Texas 

Patents. Therefore, Netlist seeks a declaration that these suits were not brought in bad faith; a 

declaration that Netlist has not made bad faith assertion of patent infringement under Idaho Code 

§ 48-1703; and a declaration that Defendants are not entitled to relief under Idaho Code § 48-1703.

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

4. On April 28, 2021, Plaintiff Netlist brought a patent infringement suit against 

Defendants Micron to vindicate its constitutionally enshrined patent rights, asserting U.S. Patent 

Nos. 8,301,833 (“the ’833 Patent”), 10,489,314 (“the ’314 Patent”), 9,824,035 (“the ’035 Patent”), 

and 10,268,608 (“the ’608 Patent”) (collectively, the “W.D. Texas Patents”). Netlist has also 

concurrently brought two patent infringement suits against Micron Defendants in the Eastern 

District of Texas, Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc. et. al., No. 22-cv-203-JRG (E.D. Tex.) 

(“Micron I”); No. 22-cv-294-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Micron II”), asserting the E.D. Texas Patents. 

5. On December 11, 2023, Micron filed a retaliatory claim in Idaho state court, 

accusing Netlist of bad faith assertion of the ’833 Patent under Idaho Code § 48-1703. Micron’s 

retaliatory bad faith suit is baseless and filed to burden Netlist and chill its constitutionally 

enshrined patent rights and its First Amendment right to petition courts for redress of grievances. 

Micron’s strategy is to drag Netlist into Micron’s preferred forum (Idaho), in which Netlist has no 

presence or any business, and threaten Netlist with the specter of punitive damages. Micron’s ploy 

is to force Netlist to divert resources from the parties’ ongoing patent infringement litigations and 

deter Netlist from, and punish Netlist for, pursuing its infringement claims further. 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 905
- 3 -

6. To avoid multiple, costly lawsuits and Micron’s blatant venue shopping, Netlist 

files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment that the infringement suits brought in the Eastern 

District of Texas were not brought in bad faith. Absent declaratory relief here, nothing prevents 

Micron from filing seriatim Idaho state court bad faith claims on each patent in dispute in this 

district. Indeed, exactly as Netlist had predicted, after Netlist filed its original Complaint in this 

action on December 22, 2023 (Dkt. 1), Micron again rushed back to Idaho state court and filed a 

second bad faith claim; this time alleging that Netlist’s suit against Micron for the infringement of 

’054 and ’918 patents, which are still pending before this Court, were also brought in bad faith.

7. This tactic, if left unchecked, will not only substantially harm Netlist, but, if Micron 

can collaterally attack (in Idaho state court) Netlist’s infringement claims brought in this district, 

there will be a significant risk of inconsistent verdicts on infringement, validity, the availability of 

attorneys’ fees, and other patent law questions that are the proper domain of federal law. Moreover, 

Idaho Code § 48-1703, as interpreted by Micron, would impede on Netlist’s First Amendment 

right to enforce its patent rights and seek redress of grievances. Thus, a substantial controversy 

exists between Netlist and Micron as to whether Netlist’s assertion of the E.D. Texas Patents was 

in bad faith under Idaho Code § 48-1703.

II. THE PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Netlist is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State 

of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 111 Academy Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 

92617.

9. On information and belief, Micron makes dynamic random-access memory 

(“DRAM”), NAND Flash, and NOR Flash memory, and other memory products in semiconductor 

fabrication plants in the United States and other countries throughout the world. On information 

and belief, Micron sells its products to customers, including customers in this District, in the 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 906
- 4 -

computer, networking and storage, consumer electronics, solid-state drives and mobile 

telecommunications markets.

10. On information and belief, Micron Technology is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of Delaware. On information and belief, Micron Technology has a regular 

and established place of business at 805 Central Expressway South, Suite 100, Allen, Texas 75013. 

On information and belief, Micron Technology is registered to do business in the State of Texas, 

and can be served through its registered agent, The Corporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th 

Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.

11. On information and belief, Micron Semiconductor is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of Idaho. On information and belief, Micron Semiconductor has a regular 

and established place of business at 805 Central Expressway South, Suite 100, Allen, Texas 75013. 

On information and belief, Micron Semiconductor is registered with the Texas Secretary of State 

to do business in Texas. On information and belief, Micron Semiconductor can be served through 

its registered agent, The Corporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 

78701-3218.

12. On information and belief, Micron Texas is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of Idaho. On information and belief, Micron Texas has a regular and established 

place of business at 805 Central Expressway South, Suite 100, Allen, Texas 75013. On 

information and belief, Micron Texas also has a regular and established place of business at 950 

West Bethany Drive, Suite 120, Allen, Texas 75013-3837. On information and belief, Micron 

Texas is registered with the Texas Secretary of State to do business in Texas. On information and 

belief, Micron Texas can be served through its registered agent, The Corporation Service 

Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas, 78701-3218.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 907
- 5 -

13. On information and belief, Micron Semiconductor and Micron Texas are wholly 

owned subsidiaries of Micron Technology. On information and belief, Micron Technology does 

not separately report revenue from Micron Semiconductor or Micron Texas in its filings to the 

Securities Exchange Commission, but rather reports combined revenue from its various products 

and subsidiaries.

14. On information and belief, Defendants have semiconductor fabrication plants in the 

United States and other countries throughout the world and manufacture memory products such as 

DRAM, NAND Flash, and NOR Flash at those plants. On information and belief, Defendants also 

use, sell, and offer for sale in the United States, import into the United States and/or export from 

the United States memory products, including DDR4 load reduced dual in-line memory modules 

(“LRDIMMs”), DDR5 dual in-line memory modules (“DIMMs”), HBM memory components, 

and other high bandwidth memory products and components, or unfinished versions thereof 

(“Accused Instrumentalities”). On information and belief, Defendants have at least used, sold, or 

offered to sell products and services, including the Accused Instrumentalities, in this judicial 

district, e.g., through sales and distribution channels managed by Micron Texas.

15. On information and belief, Defendants place, have placed, and contributed to 

placing Accused Instrumentalities into the stream of commerce via an established distribution 

channel knowing or understanding that such products would be sold and used in the United States, 

including in this judicial district. On information and belief, Defendants have also derived 

substantial revenues from infringing acts in this judicial district, including from the sale and use 

of the Accused Instrumentalities.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 908
- 6 -

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This Action arises and is brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201-2202 and arises under federal statute, the patent laws of the United States (35 U.S.C. §§ 

1, et seq.), and the United States Constitution.

17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims for declaratory judgments 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1442, 1454, and 2201(a).

18. Each Defendant is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction consistent with the 

principles of due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute.

19. Personal jurisdiction exists generally over the Defendants because each Defendant 

has sufficient minimum contacts and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the 

forum as a result of business conducted within the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas. 

Personal jurisdiction also exists over each Defendant because each, directly or through 

subsidiaries, makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, advertises, makes available, and/or 

markets products within the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas that infringe one or 

more claims of the E.D. Texas Patents. Further, on information and belief, Defendants have placed 

or contributed to placing infringing products into the stream of commerce knowing or 

understanding that such products would be sold and used in the United States, including in this 

District.

20. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and/or 

1400(b) because Defendants (1) have committed and continue to commit acts of patent 

infringement in this District by, among other things, directly and/or indirectly making, using, 

selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe one or more claims of the Patents-inSuit, and (2) have done and continue to do business in this District by maintaining regular and 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 909
- 7 -

established places of business, including at least at 805 Central Expressway South, Suite 100, 

Allen, Texas 75013.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Netlist’s Infringement Actions In Texas

21. On April 28, 2021, Netlist brought a patent infringement suit against Micron 

Defendants in the Western District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,833 (“the ’833 

Patent”), 10,489,314 (“the ’314 Patent”), 9,824,035 (“the ’035 Patent”), and 10,268,608 (“the ’608 

Patent”) . Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc. et. al., Nos. 22-cv-134 and 22-cv-136 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 

28. 2021). On May 11, 2022, the Western District of Texas granted Defendants’ Motion to Stay 

Pending Inter Partes Review of the W.D. Texas Patents. Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc. et. al., 

Nos. 22-cv-134 and 22-cv-136, Dkt. 68 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 28. 2021).

22. Netlist has also concurrently brought two patent infringement suits against Micron 

Defendants in the Eastern District of Texas, Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc. et. al., No. 22-cv203-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Micron I”); No. 22-cv-294-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Micron II”), asserting U.S. 

Patent Nos. 10,860,506 (the “’506 patent”); 10,949,339 (the “’339 patent”); 11,016,918 (the “’918 

patent”); 11,232,054 (the “’054 patent); 8,787,060 (the ’”060 patent”); and 9,318,160 (the “’160 

patent”) and U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912 (the “’912 patent”); 11,093,417 (the “’417 patent”); and 

9,858,215 (the “’215 patent”).

B. Micron’s Retaliatory Idaho Action

23. On December 11, 2023, Micron filed a lawsuit against Netlist in Idaho state court 

alleging that Netlist had violated the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act (Idaho 

Code, tit. 48, ch. 17).

24. In the first Idaho Complaint (Ex. 10), Micron touts its ties to Idaho and the jobs and 

wealth it generates for the state:

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 910
- 8 -

Micron is Idaho's most successful technology business and largest for-profit employer. 

Micron began in 1978 as a four-person semiconductor-design company in the basement of 

a Boise dental office. Since then, Micron has become a world leader in innovative 

computer-memory and data storage solutions, employing more than 6,000 people in Idaho. 

As Micron has grown into a global semiconductor innovator, Boise has remained its home, 

serving as the location of Micron's headquarters and principal research and development 

center. Indeed, Micron recently announced plans to invest approximately $15 billion 

through the end of the decade to construct a new plant for leading-edge memory 

manufacturing in Boise. It is estimated that this project will create over 17,000 new jobs.

Ex. 10 ¶ 2.

25. In contrast, the first Idaho Complaint portrays Netlist as an out-of-state “patent 

assertion entity” whose business is “shake down” Idaho businesses such as Micron:

Netlist's “business” has become bringing patent infringement suits, apparently to drive up 

litigation costs and pressure the true innovators, such as Micron, to pay what amounts to a 

business tax, i.e., pay Netlist to settle meritless suits. True to that mission, Netlist targeted 

Micron alleging infringement of facially invalid patents.

Ex. 10 ¶¶ 2-3.

26. The Idaho Act makes it “unlawful for a person to make a bad faith assertion of 

patent infringement in a demand letter, a complaint[,] or any other communication, Idaho Code 

§ 48-1703(1).

27. Micron’s first Idaho Complaint focuses specifically on one of the W.D. Texas 

Patents, the ’833 Patent. According to Micron, Netlist brought suit on the ’833 Patent in subjective 

bad faith because, Micron contends, there was no doubt that “a reasonable actor in [Netlist’s] 

position would know or reasonably should know that [the lawsuit] is meritless.” Ex. 10, at ¶ 39 

(citing, Idaho Code § 48-1703(2)(f)). 

28. It was clear from the outset, however, that Micron did not intend to stop at the ’833 

Patent. According to Micron, Netlist’s entire business model hinges on bringing meritless suits to 

force Micron into settlements. Ex. 10 ¶¶ 3-4. Micron’s allegations are baseless, but Micron clearly 

intends to bring bad faith claims against Netlist in what Micron believes to be a favorable stateCase 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 911
- 9 -

court venue in order to divert Netlist’s resources and threaten it with the prospect of substantial 

damages for asserting its constitutionally-enshrined patent rights.

29. Indeed, shortly after Netlist filed its original complaint in this action, Micron 

brought another suit under Idaho Code § 48-1703 alleging that Netlist’s suit against Micron for 

infringement of the ’054 and ’918 Patents in this district was brought in bad faith. This second 

Idaho complaint is in many respects identical to Micron’s first Idaho complaint, except this time 

Micron alleges that “Netlist knew, and any reasonable litigant should have known, that the ’054 

and ’918 patents were invalid.” Ex. 13, ¶ 5.

30. Micron’s complaints in Idaho are not only baseless, but they are preempted by 

federal law and impede on Netlist’s First Amendment rights. Micron asserts that it can prevail 

under its home court statute without proving that Netlist’s assertions of validity and infringement 

were objectively baseless. According to Micron:

[T]he statute provides that courts may consider a litany of factors ‘as evidence that 

a person has made a bad faith assertion of patent infringement:

(a) comparing the claims in the patent to the target’s products, 

services, or technology.

(b) The demand letter does not contain the following information: (i) 

The patent number; (ii) The name and address of the patent owner or 

owners and assignee or assignees, if any; and (iii) The factual 

allegations concerning the specific areas in which the target’s 

products, services and technology infringe the patent or are covered 

by the claims in the patents. 

(c) The demand letter does not identify specific areas in which the 

products, services and technology are covered by the claims in the 

patent.

(d) The demand letter demands payment of a license fee or response 

within an unreasonably short period of time. 

(e) The person offers to license the patent for an amount that is not 

reasonable based on the value of a license to the patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 912
- 10 -

(f) The person asserting a claim or allegation of patent infringement 

acts in subjective bad faith, or a reasonable actor in the person’s 

position would know or reasonably should know that such assertion is 

meritless.

(g) The claim or assertion of patent infringement is deceptive.

(h) The person or its subsidiaries or affiliates have previously filed or 

threatened to file one (1) or more lawsuits alleging patent 

infringement based on the same or similar claim, the person 

attempted to enforce the claim of patent infringement in

litigation and a court found the claim to be meritless. (i) Any other 

factor the court finds relevant. Idaho Code § 48-1703(2).

These factors do not require Micron to prove—or the court to make any finding 

with respect to—the non-infringement or invalidity of Netlist’s asserted patent.”

Ex. 14, at 9-10.

 

31. If this interpretation is correct, however, then the Idaho bad faith statute is 

preempted by federal law at least as applied to Netlist. At a minimum, to survive federal 

preemption, a state law must require a plaintiff to prove that the underlying patent suit was 

objectively baseless, meaning no reasonable litigant could have believed that Micron infringed any 

of the asserted claims and that the asserted patents were valid at the time Netlist’s suit was brought. 

Thus, infringement and validity must be part of the bad faith analysis as required by federal law. 

Otherwise, the Idaho bad faith statute violates the supremacy clause, at least as applied to Netlist.

In addition, Micron’s suits are an improper attempt to chill Netlist’s First Amendment rights. 

C. The Eastern District of Texas Actions Were Brought in Good Faith

32. As a result of Micron’s retaliatory Idaho Action, there exists a substantial 

controversy as to whether Netlist’s infringement actions against Micron in the Eastern District of 

Texas violated Idaho Code § 48-1703. As set forth below, Netlist had an objectionably reasonable 

basis for asserting that all of the pending infringement claims that Netlist has brought against 

Micron in the Eastern District of Texas had merit. Netlist also brought these suits to achieve a 

favorable verdict on the merits. Idaho Code § 48-1703(1). Thus, Netlist’s infringement suits were 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 913
- 11 -

brought in good faith and do not violate Idaho Code § 48-1703. Indeed, these suits are still ongoing, 

and, as Netlist will show at trial, Micron has infringed the E.D. Texas Patents. 

(i) The ’506 Patent

33. The ’506 Patent is entitled “Memory Module With Timing-Controlled Data 

Buffering.” Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’506 Patent are set forth in Netlist’s 

operative complaint in Micron I. Ex. 11. 

34. In sum, Netlist’s infringement allegations are based on Micron’s accused DDR4 

LRDIMM products, which include a registering clock driver (RCD), a module board having edge 

connections to be coupled to respective signal lines in the memory bus, a module control device 

(e.g., a RCD) on the module board configurable to receive input C/A signals, memory devices 

(e.g., DDR4 SDRAMs) arranged in multiple ranks on the module board and coupled to the module 

control device (e.g., RCD) via module C/A signal lines that conduct the registered C/A signals, 

which cause a selected rank of the multiple ranks to perform the memory read operation by 

outputting read data and read strobes associated with the memory read operation, and a first 

memory device in the selected rank is configurable to output at least a first section of the read data 

and at least a first read strobe. 

35. The accused DDR4 LRDIMMs further each include data buffers on the module 

board and coupled between the edge connections and the memory devices, wherein a respective 

data buffer of the data buffers is coupled to at least one respective memory device in each of the 

multiple ranks and is configurable to receive the module control signals from the module control 

device. In each accused DDR4 LRDIMM, a first data buffer on the data buffers is coupled to the 

first memory device and is configurable to, in response to one or more of the module control 

signals: delay the first read strobe by a first predetermined amount to generate a first delayed read 

strobe; sample the first section of the read data using the first delayed read strobe; and transmit the 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 914
- 12 -

first section of the read data to a first section of the data bus; wherein the first predetermined 

amount is determined based at least on signals received by the first data buffer during one or more 

previous operations. 

36. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’506 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

infringement of the ’506 Patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the accused DDR4 LRDIMM and other materially similar 

products that infringe the ’506 Patent. As another example, Micron provides specifications, 

datasheets, instruction manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use 

of the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially similar products by users in a 

manner that it knows or should have known would result in infringement and with the intent of 

inducing infringement.

37. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’506 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’506 Patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

the accused DDR4 LRDIMM and other materially similar products that infringe the ’506 Patent. 

The accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially similar products have no substantial 

noninfringing use, and constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that 

the product or process that includes the accused DDR4 LRDIMM and other materially similar 

products would be covered by one or more claims of the ’506 Patents. The use of the product or 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 915
- 13 -

process that includes the accused DDR4 LRDIMM and other materially similar products infringes 

at least one claim of the ’506 Patent.

38. Micron’s infringement of the ’506 Patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Netlist presented its patented technologies disclosed in the ’506 Patent to Micron at least 

as of February and/or April 2015. And Micron has had actual notice of the ’506 Patent since at 

least on April 28, 2021. Micron’s infringement of the ’506 Patent has been continuing and willful. 

Micron continues to commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions 

constitute infringement, and Micron knew or should have known that its actions constituted an 

unjustifiably high risk of infringement.

(ii) The ’339 Patent

39. The ’339 Patent is entitled “Memory Module With Controlled Byte-Wise Buffers,” 

and discloses a memory module configured to communicate with a memory controller that 

includes DDR DRAM devices arranged in multiple ranks each of the same width as the memory 

module, and a module controller configured to receive and register input control signals for a read 

or write operation from the memory controller and to output registered address and control signals. 

Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’339 Patent are set forth in Netlist’s operative 

complaint in Micron I. Ex. 11.

40. Netlist’s infringement allegations of the ’339 Patent are based on Micron’s DDR4 

LRDIMMs, which include an RCD, double data rate dynamic random access memory (e.g., DDR4

DRAM) devices coupled to the PCB and arranged in multiple N-bit-wide ranks, where the module 

controller (e.g., RCD) is coupled to the PCB and operatively coupled to the DDR DRAM devices

and configurable to receive from the memory controller via the address and control signal lines

input address and control signals for a memory write operation to write N-bit-wide write data from 

the memory controller into a first N-bit-wide rank of the multiple N-bit-wide ranks, and to output 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 916
- 14 -

registered address and control signals in response to receiving the input address and control signals, 

wherein the registered address and control signals cause the first N-bit-wide rank to perform the 

memory write operation by receiving the N-bit-wide write data (e.g., by using a registered chipselect signal to select a target rank for performing the memory write operation), wherein the 

module controller is further configurable to output module control signals (e.g., during a first clock 

cycle when BCOM [3:0] is 1000, the module control signals would correspond to a write WR 

command) in response to at least some of the input address and control signals. 

41. Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMMs also each comprise a plurality of byte-wise buffers 

coupled to the PCB and configured to receive the module control signals, wherein each respective 

byte-wise buffer of the plurality of byte-wise buffers has a first side configured to be operatively 

coupled to a respective set of data signal lines, a second side that is operatively coupled to at least 

one respective DDR DRAM device in each of the multiple N-bit-wide ranks via respective module 

data lines, and a byte-wise data path between the first side and the second side, wherein the each 

respective byte-wise buffer is disposed on the PCB at a respective position corresponding to the 

respective set of the plurality of sets of data signal lines. The byte-wise buffer further includes 

logic configurable to control the byte-wise data path in response to the module control signals and

the byte-wise data path includes first tristate buffers, and the logic in response to the module 

control signals is configured to enable the first tristate buffers to drive the respective byte-wise 

section of the N-bit wide write data to the respective module data lines during the first time period. 

In Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMMs, the byte-wise data path is enabled for a first time period in 

accordance with a latency parameter to actively drive a respective byte-wise section of the N-bit 

wide write data associated with the memory operation from the first side to the second side during 

the first time period.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 917
- 15 -

42. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’339 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

infringement of the ’339 Patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially 

similar products that infringe the ’339 Patent. As another example, Micron provides specifications, 

datasheets, instruction manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use 

of the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially similar products by users in a 

manner that it knows or should have known would result in infringement and with the intent of 

inducing infringement.

43. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’339 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’339 Patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially similar products that infringe the ’339 

Patent. The accused DDR4 LRDIMM and other materially similar products have no substantial 

noninfringing use, and constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that 

the product or process that includes the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially 

similar products would be covered by one or more claims of the ’339 Patent. The use of the product 

or process that includes the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products infringes at least one claim of the 

’339 Patent.

44. Micron’s infringement of the ’339 Patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Netlist presented its patented technologies disclosed in the ’339 Patent to Micron at least 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 918
- 16 -

as of February and/or April 2015. And Micron has had actual notice of the ’339 Patent since at 

least April 28, 2021. Micron’s infringement of the ’339 Patent has been continuing and willful. 

Micron continues to commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions 

constitute infringement, and Micron knew or should have known that its actions constituted an 

unjustifiably high risk of infringement.

(iii) The ’918 Patent

45. The ’918 Patent is entitled “Flash-DRAM Hybrid Memory Module.” Netlist’s 

infringement allegations concerning the ’918 Patent are set forth in Netlist’s operative complaint 

in Micron I. Ex. 11.

46. Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’918 Patent are based on Micron’s 

DDR5 LRDIMMs, DDR5 RDIMMs, DDR5 SODIMMs, DDR5 UDIMMs, with features 

including, a printed circuit board (PCB) having an interface configured to fit into a corresponding 

slot connector of a host system, the interface including a plurality of edge connections configured 

to couple power, data, address and control signals between the memory module and the host 

system, a first buck converter configured to provide a first regulated voltage having a first voltage 

amplitude; a second buck converter configured to provide a second regulated voltage having a 

second voltage amplitude; a third buck converter configured to provide a third regulated voltage 

having a third voltage amplitude; and a converter circuit configured to provide a fourth regulated 

voltage having a fourth voltage amplitude. For example, Micron’s DDR5 memory modules feature 

an on-module PMIC that receives a nominal 12V input supply V_BULK, as well as an alternative 

power supply VIN_Management. Netlist alleged that the V_BULK is the power input to buck 

converters while VIN_Management supplies power to other components on the board. The output 

of the PMIC includes three voltages VDD, VDDQ, and VPP outputted by buck converts and a 

nominal 1.0V output by a linear dropout regulator (LDO), where the VDD and VDDQ are 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 919
- 17 -

nominally at 1.1V and VPP is nominally at 1.8V. The PMIC on Micron’s DIMMs provides the 

required regulated voltages, in accordance with the latest DDR5 standards. 

47. Micron’s DDR5 products further comprise a plurality of components coupled to 

the PCB, each component of the plurality of components coupled to one or more regulated voltages 

of the first, second, third and fourth regulated voltages, the plurality of components comprising: a 

plurality of synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM) devices coupled to the first 

regulated voltage, and at least one circuit (e.g., RCD) coupled between a first portion of the 

plurality of edge connections and the plurality of SDRAM devices. The at least one circuit (e.g., 

RCD) is operable to (i) receive a first plurality of address and control signals via the first portion 

of the plurality of edge connections, and (ii) output a second plurality of address and control signals 

to the plurality of SDRAM devices. The at least one circuit is coupled to both the second regulated 

voltage and the fourth regulated voltage. For example, the RCD receives both VDDIO and VDD 

or VDDQ input, with the amplitude of VDDIO (e.g., 1.0V) being less than the amplitude of VDD 

(e.g., 1.1V) or VDDQ (e.g., 1.1V).

48. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’918 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

infringement of the ’918 Patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the accused DDR5 DIMM products and other materially similar 

products that infringe the ’918 Patent. Micron provides specifications, datasheets, instruction 

manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the accused DDR5 

DIMM products and other materially similar products by users in a manner that it knows or should 

have known would result in infringement and with the intent of inducing infringement.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 17 of 38 PageID #: 920
- 18 -

49. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’918 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’918 Patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

the accused DDR5 DIMM and other materially similar products that infringe the ’918 Patent. The 

accused DDR5 DIMM products and other materially similar products have no substantial 

noninfringing use, and constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that 

the product or process that includes the accused DDR5 DIMM or other materially similar products 

would be covered by one or more claims of the ’918 Patent. The use of the product or process that 

includes the accused DDR5 DIMM or other materially similar products infringes at least one claim 

of the ’918 Patent.

50. Micron’s infringement of the ’918 Patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Netlist presented its patented technologies disclosed in the ’918 Patent to Micron at least 

as of February and/or April 2015. And Micron has had actual notice of the ’918 Patent since at 

least April 28, 2021. Micron’s infringement of the ’918 Patent has been continuing and willful. 

Micron continues to commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions 

constitute infringement, and Micron knew or should have known that its actions constituted an 

unjustifiably high risk of infringement.

(iv) The ’054 Patent

51. The ’054 Patent is entitled “Flash-DRAM Hybrid Memory Module.” Netlist’s 

infringement allegations concerning the ’054 Patent are set forth in Netlist’s operative complaint 

in Micron I. Ex. 11.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 18 of 38 PageID #: 921
- 19 -

52. Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’054 Patent are based on Micron’s 

DDR5 LRDIMMs, DDR5 RDIMMs, DDR5 SODIMMs, DDR5 UDIMMs, which comprise 

features including, a memory module comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) having an interface 

configured to fit into a corresponding slot connector of a host system, a voltage conversion circuit 

coupled to the PCB and configured to provide a plurality of regulated voltages, wherein the voltage 

conversion circuit includes three buck converters each of which is configured to produce a 

regulated voltage of the plurality of regulated voltages. VDD, VDDQ and VPP are regulated 

voltages produced by buck converters, SWA, SWB and SWC. The voltage conversion circuit, 

which includes the relevant parts of PMIC, e.g., the inductors, capacitors, and other necessary 

elements that comprise at least three buck converters, provides the at least three required regulated 

voltages. The regulated voltages include VDD, VDDQ, VPP, among others. VDD and VDDQ 

can be programmed to have an amplitude of 1.1V. As another example, VPP can be a regulated 

voltage at 1.8V. DRAMs on the PCB are each coupled to the VDD, VDDQ and VPP regulated 

voltages. The voltage conversion circuit can also have other voltage regulators, including linear 

voltage dropout regulators. Outputs from these other voltage regulators include, e.g., a 1.8V output 

for powering components such as SPD, and a 1.0V output that may also be used to power SPD or 

where applicable, components such as an RCD that is present in RDIMMs and LRDIMMs. 

Micron’s DDR5 products further comprise a plurality of components (such as DRAM devices, 

thermal sensors, SPD and, where applicable, RCD and data buffers) coupled to the PCB, each 

component of which is coupled to at least one regulated voltage of the plurality of regulated 

voltages, including a plurality of SDRAM devices coupled to a first regulated voltage of the 

plurality of regulated voltages, such as VDD. Micron’s DDR5 products further comprise a 

controller coupled to the PCB, which includes a voltage monitor circuit coupled to an input 

voltage, such as VIN_BULK or where applicable, VIN_MGMT, received from the host system 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 19 of 38 PageID #: 922
- 20 -

via the interface. The controller and the voltage monitoring circuit may be part of the PMIC. In 

response to the voltage monitor detecting an amplitude change in the input voltage (e.g., an overor under-voltage condition on the input power pins), the memory module transitions from a first 

operable state (e.g., with all components operating normally) to a second operable state (e.g., with 

the PMIC, thermal sensors, and/or SPD still operating, but not necessarily all components 

operating).

53. Netlist further alleged infringement based on the detection of an over- or undervoltage, where the controller is configured to perform operations such as a write operation that 

records predefined bit value(s) in a register. The register is a non-volatile memory because the 

information written to the register by the controller is retained even after power-off.

54. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’054 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

infringement of the ’054 Patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the accused DDR5 DIMM products and other materially similar 

products that infringe the ’054 Patent. Micron provides specifications, datasheets, instruction 

manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the accused DDR5 

DIMM products and other materially similar products by users in a manner that it knows or should 

have known would result in infringement and with the intent of inducing infringement.

55. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’054 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’054 Patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 20 of 38 PageID #: 923
- 21 -

the accused DDR5 DIMM and other materially similar products that infringe the ’054 Patent. The 

accused DDR5 DIMM products and other materially similar products have no substantial 

noninfringing use, and constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that 

the product or process that includes the accused DDR5 DIMM or other materially similar products 

would be covered by one or more claims of the ’054 Patent. The use of the product or process that 

includes the accused DDR5 DIMM or other materially similar products infringes at least one claim 

of the ’054 Patent.

56. Micron’s infringement of the ’054 Patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Netlist presented its patented technologies disclosed in the ’054 Patent to Micron at least 

as of February and/or April 2015. And Micron has had actual notice of the ’054 Patent since at 

least April 28, 2021. Micron’s infringement of the ’054 Patent has been continuing and willful. 

Micron continues to commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions

constitute infringement, and Micron knew or should have known that its actions constituted an 

unjustifiably high risk of infringement.

(v) The ’060 Patent

57. The ’060 Patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Optimizing Driver Load in 

a Memory Package.” Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’060 Patent are set forth in 

Netlist’s operative complaint in Micron I. Ex. 11.

58. Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’060 Patent are based on Micron’s

HBM Products (including Micron’s HMB3E products), which include a plurality of array dies 

arranged in a stack (e.g., 8 stacked DRAM dies), which can be divided into at least two groups of 

array dies. The dies are interconnected via TSVs and associated bumps and bond pads. Micron’s 

HBM Products also have at least two die interconnects. For example, some TSVs only electrically 

interconnect some of the DRAM dies (first group of array die(s), selected from the group of DRAM 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 21 of 38 PageID #: 924
- 22 -

dies that Micron annotates each individually as a “Core Die” or “Memory Die”), while others may 

electrically bypass this first group of array dies and electrically connect with the active transceiver 

logic of at least one of the other DRAM dies (second group of array die(s)). The Accused HBM 

Products also include a control die, with a plurality of input/output terminals, such as terminals for 

data and control/address signals via which the memory die stack communicates data and 

control/address signals with a CPU, GPU, FPGA, or other external dies. The control die also 

includes a first driver that drives data signal via the first die interconnects and a second driver that 

drives data signal via the second die interconnects. The operation of Micron’s HBM Products 

includes a step of receiving a data signal at a first terminal (e.g., a data terminal) of the input/output 

terminals and a step of receiving a control signal at second terminals (e.g., control/address 

terminals) of the input/output terminals. Chip select signals, which may be encoded in the received 

stack ID (“SID”) signals, each select an array die to which data signals are to be driven by the 

corresponding data driver via the corresponding die interconnects. Micron’s HBM Products select 

one of the first driver and the second driver in accordance with the chip select signal(s) to drive 

the data signal to the selected array die via the corresponding first or second die interconnect.

59. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’060 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

infringement of the ’060 Patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the accused HBM products and other materially similar 

products that infringe the ’060 Patent. Micron provides specifications, datasheets, instruction 

manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the accused HBM 

products and other materially similar products by users in a manner that it knows or should have 

known would result in infringement and with the intent of inducing infringement.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 22 of 38 PageID #: 925
- 23 -

60. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’060 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’060 Patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

the accused HBM and other materially similar products that infringe the ’060 Patent. The accused 

HBM products and other materially similar products have no substantial noninfringing use, and 

constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that the product or process 

that includes the accused HBM or other materially similar products would be covered by one or 

more claims of the ’060 Patent. The use of the product or process that includes the accused HBM 

or other materially similar products infringes at least one claim of the ’060 Patent.

61. Micron’s infringement of the ’060 Patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Netlist presented its patented technologies disclosed in the ’060 Patent to Micron at least 

as of April 2015. And Micron has had actual notice of the ’060 Patent since at least April 28, 2021. 

Micron’s infringement of the ’060 Patent has been continuing and willful. Micron continues to 

commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement, and 

Micron knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of

infringement.

(vi) The ’160 Patent

62. The ’160 Patent is entitled “Memory Package with Optimized Driver Load and 

Method of Operation.” Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’160 Patent are set forth 

in Netlist’s operative complaint in Micron I. Ex. 11.

63. Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’160 Patent are based on Micron’s 

Accused HBM Products, which include terminals for data and terminals for control signals (e.g., 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 23 of 38 PageID #: 926
- 24 -

command and address signals), stacked array dies (e.g., 8 stacked DRAM dies) including at least 

two groups of array dies. The dies are interconnected via TSVs and associated bumps and bond 

pads. Micron’s HBM Products have at least two interconnects, each in electrical communication 

with one group of array dies but not in communication with a second group of array dies. For 

example, first die interconnects are in electrical communication with a first group of array dies and 

not in electrical communication with a second group of at least one array die; and second die 

interconnects are in electrical communication with the second group of at least one array die and 

not in electrical communication with the first group of array dies. This may be achieved by 

electrically coupling certain TSVs with active transceiver logic for only a subset of the dies. For 

example, some TSVs may only interconnect some of the DRAM dies (first group of array dies)

and some may bypass this first group of DRAM dies and electrically connect with the active 

transceiver logic of at least some of the other DRAM dies (second group of array dies). The 

Micron HBM Products also each include a control die, which includes first data conduits between 

the first die interconnects and the data terminals, and second data conduits between the second die 

interconnects and the data terminals. The data conduit includes first drivers each having a first 

driver size and configured to drive a data signal from a corresponding data terminal to the first 

group of array dies; and the second data conduit include second drivers each having a second driver 

size and configured to drive a data signal from a corresponding data terminal to the second group 

of at least one array die. The second driver size is different from the first driver size, for example, 

to account for the different distances data signals have to travel to reach the respective array dies 

in the stack.

64. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’160 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 24 of 38 PageID #: 927
- 25 -

infringement of the ’160 Patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the accused HBM products and other materially similar 

products that infringe the ’160 Patent. Micron provides specifications, datasheets, instruction 

manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the accused HBM 

products and other materially similar products by users in a manner that it knows or should have 

known would result in infringement and with the intent of inducing infringement.

65. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’160 Patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’160 Patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

the accused HBM and other materially similar products that infringe the ’160 Patent. The accused 

HBM products and other materially similar products have no substantial noninfringing use, and 

constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that the product or process 

that includes the accused HBM or other materially similar products would be covered by one or 

more claims of the ’160 Patent. The use of the product or process that includes the accused HBM 

or other materially similar products infringes at least one claim of the ’160 Patent.

66. Micron’s infringement of the ’160 Patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Netlist presented its patented technologies disclosed in the ’160 Patent to Micron at least 

as of April 2015. And Micron has had actual notice of the ’160 Patent since at least April 28, 2021. 

Micron’s infringement of the ’160 Patent has been continuing and willful. Micron continues to 

commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement, and 

Micron knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of 

infringement.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 25 of 38 PageID #: 928
- 26 -

(vii) The ’912 Patent

67. The ’912 patent is entitled “Memory Module Decoder.” Netlist’s infringement 

allegations concerning the ’912 Patent are set forth in Netlist’s operative complaint in Micron II. 

Ex. 12.

68. Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’912 Patent are based on Micron’s 

DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM Products, which are memory modules connectable to a computer 

system, and include a printed circuit board (PCB) with a plurality of memory devices and other 

components mounted on the PCB, edge connections on the PCB for coupling data, address signals 

and control signals between the DIMM and the memory controller on the computer system, where 

the DRAM devices are arranged in sets of two or more ranks. The Micron DDR4 LRDIMM and 

RDIMM Products also include a circuit, e.g., DDR4 RCD, which is coupled (i.e., electrically 

connected) to the PCB and comprises a logic element and a register. The RCD in Micron’s DDR4 

LRDIMM and RDIMM Products receives a set of input signals from the computer system, 

including at least one row/column address signal, bank address signals, and at least one chip-select 

signal. The RCD implements a chip select mode, where the RCD to receive a set input chip selects 

for fewer than the total number of ranks in the DIMM. The RCD on Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMM 

and RDIMM Products also generates a set of output signals (QAA[13:0]) and/or QBA[13:0]) in 

response to the set of input signals. The RCD on Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM Products 

will select the rank(s) indicated by the output chip select signals that are asserted low. The RCD 

in Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM Products is also designed to allow the programmability 

of individual DDR memory devices (PDA mode). The Micron DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM 

Products also include a phase-lock loop device (PLL) that is electrically connected to the register 

and logic element of the RCD.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 26 of 38 PageID #: 929
- 27 -

69. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’912 patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

infringement of the ’912 patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the Accused Products, and other materially similar products 

that infringe the ’912 patent. Micron provides specifications, datasheets, instruction manuals, 

and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the Accused Products and 

other materially similar products by users in a manner that it knows or should have known would 

result in infringement and with the intent of inducing infringement.

70. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’912 patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’912 patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

the Accused Products that infringe the ’912 patent. The Accused Products have no substantial 

noninfringing use, and constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that 

the product or process that includes the Accused Products would be covered by one or more claims 

of the ’912 patent. The use of the product or process that includes Accused Products infringes at 

least one claim of the ’912 patent.

71. Micron’s infringement of the ’912 patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Micron has had knowledge of the ’912 patent since as early as 2010, when Netlist disclosed 

it at a JEDEC meeting Micron attended. Micron also gained knowledge of the ’912 patent in 2015, 

when Netlist included it in a presentation to Micron. Micron gained knowledge of the ’912 patent 

no later than April 28, 2021, when Netlist sent Micron a licensing negotiation letter identifying the 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 27 of 38 PageID #: 930
- 28 -

’912 patent. Micron’s infringement of the ’912 patent has been continuous and willful. Micron 

continues to commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions constitute 

infringement, and Micron knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably 

high risk of infringement.

(viii) The ’417 Patent

72. The ’417 Patent is entitled “Memory Module With Data Buffering.” Netlist’s 

infringement allegations concerning the ’417 Patent are set forth in Netlist’s operative complaint 

in Micron II. Ex. 12.

73. Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’417 Patent are based on Micron’s 

DDR4 LRDIMMs, which comprise a memory module operable in a computer system to 

communicate data with a memory controller of the computer system via a N-bit wide data bus in 

response to memory commands (e.g., read or write) received from the memory controller. The 

DDR4 LRDIMMs feature a PCB having a plurality of edge connections configured to be 

electrically coupled to a corresponding plurality of contacts of a module slot of the computer 

system, with logic (e.g., DDR4 registering clock driver, or “RCD”) coupled to the PCB. Micron’s 

DDR4 LRDIMMs are configurable to receive a set of input address and control signals associated 

with a read or write memory command via the address and control signal lines and to output a set 

of registered address and control signals in response to the set of input address and control signals.

The set of input address and control signals includes a plurality of input chip select signals and 

other input address and control signals. The plurality of input chip select signals include one chip 

select signal having an active signal value and one or more other input chip select signals each 

having a non-active signal value. The logic receives the chip select signals with one active value 

and one or more chip selects with a non-active value and outputs corresponding registered chip 

selects. The logic is further configurable to output data buffer control signals (e.g., 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 28 of 38 PageID #: 931
- 29 -

BCOM[3:0]=1001 or BCOM[3:0]=1000) in response to the read or write memory command, e.g., 

via the data buffer control bus BCOM[3:0] bus. Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMMs further comprise 

memory devices (e.g., SDRAMs) mounted on the PCB and arranged in a plurality of N-bit wide 

ranks, which correspond to respective ones of the plurality of registered chip select signals such 

that each of the plurality of registered chip select signals is received by memory devices on 

respective N-bit wide ranks. Microns’ DDR4 LRDIMMs each include circuitry (e.g., DDR4 data 

buffers) coupled between the data signal lines in the N-bit wide memory bus and corresponding 

data pins of memory devices in each of the plurality of N-bit wide ranks. The circuitry (e.g., DDR4 

data buffer) is configurable to transfer the burst of N-bit wide data signals between the N-bit wide 

memory bus and the memory devices in the one of the plurality of N-bit wide ranks in response to 

the data buffer control signals (e.g., BCOM[3:0]=1001 or BCOM[3:0]=1000) and in accordance 

with an overall CAS latency of the memory module. The data transfers through the circuitry (e.g., 

DDR4 data buffer) are registered for an amount of time delay such that the overall CAS latency of 

the memory module is greater than an actual operational CAS latency of each of the memory 

devices.

74. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’417 patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

infringement of the ’417 patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially 

similar products that infringe the ’417 patent. Micron provides specifications, datasheets, 

instruction manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the 

accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially similar products by users in a manner that 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 29 of 38 PageID #: 932
- 30 -

it knows or should have known would result in infringement and with the intent of inducing 

infringement.

75. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’417 patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’417 patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially similar products that infringe the ’417 

patent. The accused DDR4 LRDIMM and other materially similar products have no substantial 

noninfringing use, and constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that 

the product or process that includes the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially 

similar products would be covered by one or more claims of the ’417 patent. The use of the product 

or process that includes the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products infringes at least one claim of the 

’417 patent.

76. Micron’s infringement of the ’417 patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Micron has had knowledge of predecessor patents to the ’417 patent as early as 2010. 

Micron also gained knowledge of predecessor patents to the ’417 patent in 2015, when Netlist 

presented its technology and patents to Micron. Micron has had actual knowledge of the ’417

patent since no later than April 1, 2022, when Netlist sent Micron a licensing negotiation letter 

identifying its patents, including the ’417 patent. Micron’s infringement of the ’417 patent has 

been continuous and willful. Micron continues to commit acts of infringement despite a high 

likelihood that its actions constitute infringement, and Micron knew or should have known that its 

actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement.

(ix) The ’215 Patent

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 30 of 38 PageID #: 933
- 31 -

77. The ’215 Patent, entitled “Memory Module With Data Buffering,” relates to a 

memory module that is operable to communicate data with a memory controller via a memory bus 

in response to memory commands received from the memory controller. Netlist’s infringement 

allegations concerning the ’215 Patent are set forth in Netlist’s operative complaint in Micron II. 

Ex. 12.

78. Netlist’s infringement allegations concerning the ’215 Patent are based on Micron’s 

DDR4 LRDIMMs, which feature a memory module operable in a computer system to 

communicate data with a memory controller of the computer system via a memory bus in response 

to memory commands received from the memory controller. The memory commands may include

a first memory command and a subsequent second memory command, where the first memory 

command causesthe memory module to receive or output a first data burst, and the second memory 

command causes the memory module to receive or output a second data burst. These products 

further include a PCB having a plurality of edge connections configured to be electrically coupled 

to a corresponding plurality of contacts of a module slot of the computer system, and a register 

coupled to the PCB. The register of Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMMs is configured to receive and 

buffer first command and address signals representing the first memory command, and to receive 

and buffer second command and address signals representing the second memory command. 

These products also include a plurality of memory integrated circuits (e.g., SDRAMs) mounted on 

the PCB and arranged in a plurality of ranks including a first rank and a second rank, where the 

plurality of memory integrated circuits include at least one first memory integrated circuit in the 

first rank and at least one second memory integrated circuit in the second rank. A first rank is 

selected to receive or output the first data burst in response to the first memory command, which 

is associated with a first chip-select signal, and is not selected to communicate data with the 

memory controller in response to the second memory command. Similarly, the second rank on 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 31 of 38 PageID #: 934
- 32 -

Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMMs is selected to receive or output the second data burst in response to 

the second memory command, which is associated with a second chip-select signal, and is not 

selected to communicate data with the memory controller in response to the first memory 

command. Micron’s DDR4 LRDIMMs also comprise a buffer (e.g. DDR4 data buffer) coupled 

between the at least one first memory integrated circuit and the memory bus, and between the at 

least one second memory integrated circuit and the memory bus. The buffer includes logic coupled 

to the buffer that is configured to respond to the first memory command by providing first control 

signals to the buffer to enable communication of the first data burst between the at least one first 

memory integrated circuit and the memory controller through the buffer. The logic is further 

configured to respond to the second memory command by providing second control signals to the 

buffer to enable communication of the second data burst between the at least one second memory 

integrated circuit and the memory controller through the buffer, the second control signals being 

different from the first control signals.

79. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’215 patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), 

by inducing infringement by others, such as Micron’s customers and end users, in this District and 

elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has induced, and currently induces, the 

infringement of the ’215 patent through its affirmative acts of selling, offering to sell, distributing, 

and/or otherwise making available the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially 

similar products that infringe the ’215 patent. Micron provides specifications, datasheets, 

instruction manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the 

accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially similar products by users in a manner that 

it knows or should have known would result in infringement and with the intent of inducing 

infringement.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 32 of 38 PageID #: 935
- 33 -

80. Micron also indirectly infringes the ’215 patent, as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), 

contributing to direct infringement committed by others, such as customers and end users, in this 

District and elsewhere in the United States. For example, Micron has contributed to, and currently 

contributes to, Micron’s customers and end-users infringement of the ’215 patent through its 

affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, 

the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially similar products that infringe the ’215 

patent. The accused DDR4 LRDIMM and other materially similar products have no substantial 

noninfringing use, and constitute a material part of the patented invention. Micron is aware that 

the product or process that includes the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products and other materially 

similar products would be covered by one or more claims of the ’215 patent. The use of the product 

or process that includes the accused DDR4 LRDIMM products infringes at least one claim of the 

’215 patent.

81. Micron’s infringement of the ’215 patent has damaged and will continue to damage 

Netlist. Micron has had knowledge of predecessor patents to the ’215 patent since as early as 2010. 

Micron also gained knowledge of predecessor patents to the ’215 patent in 2015, when Netlist 

presented its technology and patents to Micron. Micron has had actual knowledge of the ’215 

patent since no later than April 28, 2021, when Netlist sent Micron a licensing negotiation letter 

identifying its patents, including the ’215 patent. Micron’s infringement of the ’215 patent has 

been continuous and willful. Micron continues to commit acts of infringement despite a high

likelihood that its actions constitute infringement, and Micron knew or should have known that its 

actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement.

* * *

82. Netlist also has good faith belief that each of the patents above are valid. Notably, 

Samsung challenged the validity of the ’506 patent, ’339 patent, ’918 patent, ’054 patent, ’060 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 33 of 38 PageID #: 936
- 34 -

patent, and ’160 patent in Samsung I, but the jury found all challenged claims were not invalid. 

Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., et. al., No. 21-cv- 463-JRG, Dkt. 479 (E.D. Tex.). While 

Samsung and Micron have filed IPRs on the E.D. Texas Patents, Netlist disputes Samsung’s and 

Micron’s contention that these patents are invalid, and these IPR challenges remain pending. 

V. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’506 PATENT

83. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

84. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’506 Patent against Micron.

VI. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’339 PATENT

85. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

86. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’339 Patent against Micron. 

VII. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’918 PATENT

87. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

88. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’918 Patent against Micron.

VIII. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’054 PATENT

89. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

90. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’054 Patent against Micron.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 34 of 38 PageID #: 937
- 35 -

IX. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’060 PATENT

91. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

92. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’060 Patent against Micron.

X. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’160 PATENT

93. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

94. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’160 Patent against Micron.

XI. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’912 PATENT

95. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

96. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’912 Patent against Micron. 

XII. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’417 PATENT

97. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

98. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’417 Patent against Micron. 

XIII. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’215 PATENT

99. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 35 of 38 PageID #: 938
- 36 -

100. A declaration that Netlist has not violated Idaho Code § 48-1703 by asserting the 

’215 Patent against Micron. 

XIV. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – A DECLARATION THAT MICRON’S BAD 

FAITH CLAIMS ARE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND VIOLATE 

NETLIST’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS 

101. Netlist re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

102. A declaration that, to the extent that Idaho Code § 48-1703 permits a finding of bad 

faith without also requiring a finding that the underlying patent suit was objectively baseless under 

federal law, it is preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and 

unconstitutional as applied to Netlist. Netlist also seeks a declaration that Micron’s suit violates 

Netlist’s right to enforce its patents under the First Amendment. 

XV. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

103. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Netlist hereby demands a trial 

by jury on all issues triable to a jury.

XVI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Netlist respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its

favor and relief as follows:

A. a declaration that Netlist has not made a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement 

against Micron nor engaged in any unlawful, unfair, or deceptive act or practice in trade or 

commerce under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, and is therefore compliant with Idaho Code 

§ 48-1703; 

B. a judgment that Micron is not entitled to any award of damages in the pursuit of 

this litigation pursuant to Idaho Code § 48-1706(b) and (d), § 48-1706(1)(c), Idaho Rule of Civil 

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 36 of 38 PageID #: 939
- 37 -

Procedure 54, and such other and additional provisions of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure and 

Idaho Code, or any other applicable authority;

C. a declaration that, to the extent that Idaho Code § 48-1703, permits a finding a bad 

faith without also requiring a finding that the underlying patent suit was objectively baseless under 

federal law, it is preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and 

unconstitutional as applied to Netlist. 

D. a declaration that Micron’s bad-faith suits violate Netlist’s right to enforce its 

patents under the First Amendment;

E. such other further relief at law or in equity which may be requested and to which 

Netlist is entitled.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 37 of 38 PageID #: 940
- 38 -

Dated: February 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Philip Warrick

Samuel F. Baxter 

Texas State Bar No. 01938000 

sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com

Jennifer L. Truelove 

Texas State Bar No. 24012906 

jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 

104 East Houston Street Suite 300 

Marshall, TX 75670 

Telephone: (903) 923-9000 

Facsimile: (903) 923-9099 

Philip Warrick

New York Bar No. 4471413

pwarrick@irell.com

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

750 17th Street NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20006

Tel. (310) 777-6512

Fax (310) 317-7252

Jason G. Sheasby (pro hac vice) 

jsheasby@irell.com 

Annita Zhong, Ph.D. (pro hac vice) 

hzhong@irell.com 

Thomas C. Werner (pro hac vice)

twerner@irell.com

Yanan Zhao (pro hac vice) 

yzhao@irell.com

Michael W. Tezyan (pro hac vice) 

mtezyan@irell.com

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel. (310) 277-1010

Fax (310) 203-7199

Attorneys for Plaintiff Netlist, Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00628-JRG Document 14 Filed 02/07/24 Page 38 of 38 PageID #: 941