The parties and the court

The case is Netlist, Inc. v. Kingston Technology Corporation, No. 8:26-cv-03047 (C.D. Cal.). The complaint names two defendants and alleges, on information and belief, that Kingston Technology Corporation is a California corporation, that Kingston Technology Company, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, and that both have their principal place of business in Fountain Valley, California. Netlist is a Delaware corporation based in Irvine, California. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b) on the theory that Kingston commits acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business in Fountain Valley.

Netlist is represented by Irell & Manella LLP (Jason Sheasby, H. Annita Zhong, Andrew Strabone, Michael Tezyan, and N. Isabella Chestney).

What the patents cover

U.S. Patent 12,373,366, titled Memory with On-Module Power Management, issued July 29, 2025 from an application filed January 24, 2022, and it claims priority to earlier family applications, the earliest a provisional application filed June 1, 2007. Claim 1 covers a DIMM powered only from the system board's power rails that carries a controller with a voltage monitor circuit and nonvolatile memory. The voltage monitor generates a trigger signal when the input voltage exceeds a first threshold, and the controller responds by writing data into the nonvolatile memory. The module also has four converter circuits that feed four regulated voltage lines, with each component powered only through those lines, and DDR SDRAM devices arranged in two chip select groups, one of at least five devices that handles at least 40 data signals (at least 32 data and at least eight error correcting code) independently of the other, with the data lines totaling at least 72.

U.S. Patent 12,762,074, titled Flash-Dram Hybrid Memory Module, issued October 13, 2026, three days before the complaint, from an application filed December 8, 2025 in the same family. Claim 26 covers a DIMM whose power conduits exclusively deliver power from the system board's power rails, with a controller that monitors the input voltage and, in response to a first trigger signal, performs write operations to a data storage element, and a power module with a voltage conversion element that continuously receives input power and produces at least two regulated voltages for the module's components, including volatile memory packages.

Accused products and theories

The accused products are Kingston DDR5 RDIMM, UDIMM, and SODIMM modules and materially similar modules. The complaint names part numbers in the ValueRAM line (for example KVR64A52BS6-8 and KVR56S46BD8-32) and the Server Premier line (for example KSM56E46BD8KM-32HA and KSM64R52BD4-64HA). Count One accuses DDR5 RDIMMs under claim 1 of the '366 patent, and Count Two accuses DDR5 UDIMMs and SODIMMs under claim 26 of the '074 patent. The complaint maps the claimed controller and converter circuits to the modules' power management integrated circuits, naming Renesas and MPS parts for the RDIMMs and a Richtek part for the UDIMMs and SODIMMs, and listing Renesas, Montage, MPS, Richtek, and TI as PMIC sources. It alleges, on information and belief, that the products comply with JEDEC DDR5 specifications, and says Netlist is not relying on essentiality to those specifications to establish infringement.

Each count pleads, on information and belief, direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). Willfulness is pleaded on both patents.

The licensing history in the complaint

The complaint alleges that Netlist approached Kingston about DDR4 modules on November 11, 2021, and about DDR5 modules on April 22, 2025, with follow-ups on June 17 and September 8, 2025. It alleges that a meeting set for October 8, 2025 was moved at Kingston's request, that Netlist presented its technology at a December 3, 2025 meeting and sent the presentation on December 23, 2025, and that Netlist made a worldwide portfolio license offer on February 13, 2026, followed by exchanges with Kingston's counsel through May 2026. It pleads knowledge of the '366 patent from December 3, 2025, alleges, on information and belief, that Kingston knew of the '074 application from December 23, 2025, and pleads notice of the issued '074 patent from the filing of the complaint.

The complaint cites Netlist's announced portfolio licenses with Samsung (August 5, 2026) and Micron (October 6, 2026) and says SK hynix previously took a license.

Procedural history of the asserted patents

The '366 patent has been asserted against Samsung and Micron. On July 28, 2025, Netlist sued Samsung and Avnet, No. 2:25-cv-00748, and Micron and Avnet, No. 2:25-cv-00749, in the Eastern District of Texas on the '366 patent, each complaint quoting claim 1. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. On April 1, 2026, Judge Gilstrap ruled on Micron's venue motion, and the Micron case was transferred to the District of Delaware as No. 1:26-cv-00362, where it was consolidated with Micron's declaratory judgment action, No. 1:25-cv-00942, before Judge Jennifer L. Hall. The Samsung case was dismissed with prejudice on August 22, 2026, on a joint stipulation.

At the ITC, the '366 patent was asserted against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro in Investigation No. 337-TA-1472, instituted January 2, 2026 on claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 to 16. Claims 11 and 15 were later withdrawn, and the Commission terminated the investigation on the Samsung settlement by notice issued October 6, 2026. Netlist also asserted the '366 patent in Investigation No. 337-TA-1523, instituted in September 2026 against Micron, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Lenovo, and Super Micro on claims 1 to 14 and 16 to 28. On October 5, 2026, Netlist and Micron entered a settlement and license that, according to Netlist's Form 8-K, settles all pending proceedings between them identified in the agreement.

At the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Samsung filed a post-grant review petition, PGR2026-00001, and an inter partes review petition, IPR2026-00018, on November 7, 2025, challenging all claims of the '366 patent, the PGR on written description and obviousness grounds and the IPR on obviousness. Google Patents lists both as not instituted on procedural grounds. The '074 patent issued three days before the complaint.

Relief requested

The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement, equitable relief the court deems just, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, a willfulness finding with enhanced damages, an exceptional case award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and an accounting with supplemental damages and interest. Netlist demands a jury. The complaint does not state a damages amount or specifically request an injunction.

What it means

The complaint describes Kingston as one of the largest manufacturers of semiconductor memory products and sets what it describes as Kingston's refusal to engage against the Samsung, Micron, and SK hynix licenses. The '366 patent reaches the case without a merits ruling on its validity or infringement, since the earlier cases ended or moved before trial and Samsung's PTAB petitions were not instituted. Kingston may file its own PTAB petitions. Samsung's PGR petition argued that the '366 claims lack written description support in the pre-2013 family applications, and the '074 patent claims priority to the same applications.

What to watch next

Watch for Kingston's answer or a motion to dismiss, any PTAB petitions on either patent, and any motion to stay. Watch also whether Netlist adds later issued family patents, since the complaint says Netlist told Kingston it had live continuations. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or license.

Related pages: Netlist v. Micron, Netlist v. Micron Federal Circuit PTAB appeals, 337-TA-1472 termination, and DN 3939.