- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Netlist Wins $445 Million Verdict Against Micron For Memory-Module Patent Violation
Netlist Wins $445 Million Verdict Against Micron For Memory-Module Patent Violation
A U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has ordered chipmaker Micron Technology to pay computer-memory company Netlist $445 million in damages for infringing on Netlist's patent rights related to memory-module technology for high-performance computing.
The jury found that Micron’s semiconductor-memory products infringed on two patents held by Netlist. These patents pertain to technology designed to enhance the capacity and performance of memory modules. Additionally, the jury determined that Micron’s infringement was willful, which opens the possibility for the judge to triple the damages awarded.
Netlist’s attorney, Jason Sheasby, expressed gratitude for the jury’s decision, highlighting the significance of Netlist’s innovation. “We are grateful for the jury’s service and their recognition of the importance of Netlist’s innovation,” Sheasby stated.
In a related development, Netlist secured a $303 million verdict against Samsung last year in the same court concerning similar high-performance computer memory patents. Micron, based in Boise, Idaho, has seen its stock price increase this year due to strong demand for its chips, which are used in artificial intelligence technology.
Netlist filed the lawsuit against Micron in 2022, claiming that three of Micron’s semiconductor memory-module lines infringed its patents. Micron has contested these claims, arguing that the patents in question are invalid. Additionally, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal invalidated one of the patents in April, which could potentially reduce the size of the damages awarded.