The parties and the court
The case is Netlist, Inc. v. Kingston Technology Corporation, No. 8:26-cv-03262 (C.D. Cal.). Netlist, Inc. filed the complaint on November 4, 2026. The caption names seven defendants: Kingston Technology Corporation, Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Digital, Inc., Kingston Technology Far East Corp., Kingston Solutions, Inc., Kingston Technology Co., Ltd., and Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co.
The complaint alleges that Netlist is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California. It alleges, on information and belief, that Kingston Technology Corporation is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Fountain Valley, California, and that the other six defendants are its subsidiaries. It alleges, on information and belief, that Kingston Technology Company, Inc. and Kingston Digital, Inc. are Delaware corporations with principal places of business in Fountain Valley and are wholly owned subsidiaries; that Kingston Technology Far East Corp. is a Taiwan corporation with its principal place of business in Hsinchu, Taiwan; that Kingston Solutions, Inc. is a Taiwan corporation with its principal place of business in Zhubei City, Taiwan; that Kingston Technology Co., Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China with its principal place of business in Beijing, China; and that Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co. is a corporation organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China with its principal place of business in Shanghai, China.
Subject matter jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. The complaint pleads personal jurisdiction under principles of due process and the California long-arm statute, based on business in California and in this district and on making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, or marketing products here. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b), on the theory that the defendants commit acts of infringement in the district and maintain a regular and established place of business in Fountain Valley. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Kingston makes solid state drives, memory modules, and other flash products, and that it manufactures, distributes, or imports DDR5 dual in-line memory modules and solid state drives in the United States and in this district.
The four patents
The complaint asserts four patents and alleges that Netlist owns each by assignment. Each patent lists Netlist, Inc. as assignee. U.S. Patent 10,025,731, titled Memory Module and Circuit Providing Load Isolation and Noise Reduction, issued July 17, 2018, from application 14/715,491, filed May 18, 2015. U.S. Patent 12,675,407, titled Memory Module with Local Clock Signals, issued July 7, 2026, from application 18/935,410, filed November 1, 2024. U.S. Patent 11,200,120, titled Hybrid Memory System with Configurable Error Thresholds and Failure Analysis Capability, issued December 14, 2021, from application 16/517,210, filed July 19, 2019. U.S. Patent 11,914,481 carries the same title and issued February 27, 2024, from application 18/154,500, filed January 13, 2023.
The complaint quotes claim 1 of each patent. Each count alleges, on information and belief, infringement of at least one claim and uses claim 1 as the example. The complaint says those examples are not limiting.
What the patents cover
Claim 1 of the '731 patent covers a memory module operable to communicate data with a system memory controller via a memory bus in response to address and control signals. The module has a printed circuit board with at least one connector, including edge connections distributed along one or more edges, configured to be operatively coupled to the memory bus. Memory devices on the board are arranged in multiple ranks. Each rank is an independent set of memory devices that can be accessed for a full bit-width of the memory bus. At least one circuit is coupled between the connector and the memory devices. That circuit has a first set of port connections coupled to edge connections and a second set of port connections coupled to the memory devices, and a set of correction circuits. Each correction circuit is configured to make corrections in signals transmitted between a port in the first set and a corresponding port in the second set, and includes at least one programmable impedance matching circuit. Control circuitry receives the address and control signals, controls the memory devices in response, and dynamically controls the programmable impedance matching circuit based on which rank is selected to communicate data.
Claim 1 of the '407 patent covers a memory module operable in a computer system that has a memory controller and a system bus. The system bus includes clock signal lines, control and address signal lines, and data signal lines. The module has a printed circuit board with connectors that provide electrical connections to the system bus, and memory devices mounted on the board and organized in groups. A group is configurable to communicate data with the memory controller via a corresponding subset of the data signal lines. Circuitry on the board is configurable to receive a system clock and input control and address signals, to generate module control and address signals in response to the input signals, and to generate local clocks corresponding to the groups. The local clocks have phase relationships with the system clock, and those phase relationships are programmable independently of each other. A local clock is output to a corresponding group of memory devices and not to any other group. That group is configurable to perform memory read or write operations by communicating data signals in accordance with its local clock.
Claim 1 of the '120 patent covers a memory diagnostic and health check system. It includes a non-volatile memory subsystem with blocks, each block including pages, and each page configured to store data information in non-volatile memory cells. It includes sets of programmable threshold registers. Each set is configured to be programmed with threshold values, including first and second threshold values that represent first and second programmable desired reliability levels of a first parameter of a set of parameters of the subsystem. A controller is coupled to an interface, to the subsystem, and to the registers. The controller is configured to communicate with a host system via the interface using a protocol, to operate the subsystem, and to determine whether that first parameter has reached at least one of the first or second threshold values.
Claim 1 of the '481 patent covers a memory system having programmable reliability levels. It includes a non-volatile memory subsystem with blocks, each including pages, and each page including non-volatile memory cells and configured to store an associated number of bytes. Programmable registers include first and second programmable threshold registers that store first and second programmable threshold values. The second threshold value is less than the first. A controller coupled to the subsystem and the registers is configured to determine if operation reliability for a first memory portion, which is a page or a block, has reached a first or a second reliability level. The first level is reached when a first parameter for that portion matches or exceeds the first threshold value, and the second level is reached when the first parameter matches or exceeds the second threshold value. When the first level is reached, the controller is configured to perform a first remediation action. When the second level is reached, the controller is configured to perform a second remediation action.
Accused products
The complaint defines the accused DDR5 products as Kingston DDR5 products, such as DDR5 registered dual in-line memory modules (RDIMMs), other memory modules with materially the same structure, and products containing them, such as servers and computing systems that the defendants make, sell, offer for sale, use, or import into the United States. It alleges, on information and belief, that the accused DDR5 products comply with JEDEC specifications for DDR5 RDIMM form factors. The complaint says Netlist is not relying on essentiality to those specifications to establish infringement.
The complaint says the accused DDR5 products include, but are not limited to, Server Premier registered modules with these part numbers: KSM64R52BS8-16MH, KSM64R52BD8-32MH, KSM64R52BD4-64HA, KSM64R52BD4-64MD, KSM64R52BD4-64MH, KSM64R52BD4-96HM, KSM64R52BD4-96MC, KSM64R52BD4-128MB, KSM56R46BS8-16HA, KSM56R46BS8-16MH, KSM56R46BS8PMI-16HAI, KSM56R46BD8-32HA, KSM56R46BD8-32MH, KSM56R46BD8PMI-32HAI, KSM56R46BS4PMI-48HMI, KSM56R46BD4-64HA, KSM56R46BD4-64MD, KSM56R46BD4-64MH, KSM56R46BD4PMI-64HAI, KSM56R46BD4PMI-96HMI, and KSM56R46BD4PMI-96MBI. It also names Kingston FURY Renegade Pro DDR5 registered modules and a module Kingston makes for a specific customer, part LV48R40BD8HA-32IIMI. The complaint says the accused DDR5 products include modules that incorporate registering clock drivers, and that a Kingston part-number decoder indicates Kingston sources those drivers from third-party vendors.
The complaint says the accused solid-state drives include, but are not limited to, enterprise drives in the DC600M, DC2000B, and DC3000ME series, and commercial drives in the FURY Renegade, FURY Renegade G5, KC600, KC3000, A400, and NV3 series. The examples in Counts Three and Four discuss DC3000ME drives.
The four counts
Count One is infringement of the '731 patent. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants have directly infringed and are infringing at least one claim, including claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing accused DDR5 registered modules and other products with materially the same structure, without authority. It alleges, on information and belief, induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c), including that the accused products have no substantial noninfringing use and are a material part of the patented invention. It alleges that the infringement is willful, and that Kingston has had actual notice of the '731 patent since at least December 3, 2025, when Netlist presented exemplary claim charts mapping the patent to Kingston DDR5 modules.
Count Two is infringement of the '407 patent. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, the same direct, induced, and contributory theories, including no substantial noninfringing use, against accused DDR5 registered modules and other products with materially the same structure, and it uses claim 1 as the example. It alleges that the infringement is willful. It alleges, on information and belief, that Kingston had actual notice of the '407 patent and of infringement before this complaint, including by an October 29, 2026 letter that identified the patent as covering DDR5 modules.
Count Three is infringement of the '120 patent, and Count Four is infringement of the '481 patent. Each count alleges, 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), including no substantial noninfringing use, by accused solid-state drives and other products with materially the same structure. Each uses claim 1 as the example, and each alleges that the infringement is willful. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Kingston had actual notice of each patent before this complaint. The October 29, 2026 letter, the complaint says, identified the '120 and '481 patents as covering solid-state drives.
Relief requested
The prayer asks for a judgment that Kingston infringes the asserted patents; all equitable relief the court deems just and proper as a result of Kingston's infringement; an award of damages for the alleged infringement under 35 U.S.C. 284; a finding that the infringement is willful; enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284; a finding that this is an exceptional case and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285; an accounting for acts of infringement and supplemental damages, without limitation, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and such other equitable relief as may be requested and to which Netlist establishes it is entitled. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Netlist demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.
The license talks alleged in the complaint
The complaint alleges that Netlist asked Kingston on November 11, 2021 for a meeting about DDR4 modules, and that Kingston did not commit to a meeting. It alleges that on April 22, 2025 Netlist asked to begin licensing talks on DDR5 modules, followed up on June 17, 2025, and wrote again on September 8, 2025. It alleges that a meeting was set for October 8, 2025 at Netlist's office, that Kingston canceled on October 5, 2025, and that the parties met on December 3, 2025. At that meeting, the complaint says, Netlist presented its memory technologies and a proposed licensing framework, said it was continuing to grow the portfolio through continuation practice, and gave Kingston a claim chart mapping the '731 patent to Kingston DDR5 modules. The complaint says Netlist asserted that its intellectual property covers Kingston DDR5 RDIMM, SODIMM, and UDIMM products and NAND-based products, among others. Netlist sent the presentation on December 23, 2025.
The complaint alleges that on February 13, 2026 Netlist offered a worldwide license to all Netlist patents for products Kingston manufactures, sells, or distributes, and that correspondence through May 2026 did not produce another meeting. It alleges that on October 29, 2026 Netlist sent a letter asking to resume talks. The complaint says the letter notified Kingston of a settlement with two companies, and it quotes the letter: "[t]hese licenses confirm the value of our portfolio while Kingston continues its willful infringement." It also quotes the letter as saying that Netlist "remains willing to engage in negotiations with Kingston for a license to all patents and pending applications in our portfolio." The complaint says the letter identified the '731 and '407 patents as covering DDR5 modules, among other products, and the '120 and '481 patents as covering solid-state drives and other products that Kingston does not sell.
The complaint says each of the three largest suppliers of DRAM and NAND modules in the world has taken a license to Netlist's patents, and that Netlist announced portfolio licenses on August 5, 2026 and October 6, 2026. It alleges that Netlist previously asserted the '731 patent in district court actions and at the International Trade Commission, and that it previously asserted the '407 patent in district court actions and at the Commission. It alleges, on information and belief, that Kingston knew of the Commission action in which the '731 patent was asserted at least as of December 23, 2025, because Netlist told Kingston that the action had been filed.
Other proceedings on these patents
Federal Register notices list the '731 patent among the patents in Investigation No. 337-TA-1472, instituted in January 2026, and list both the '731 and '407 patents in Investigation No. 337-TA-1523, instituted in September 2026. Netlist's complaint in No. 8:26-cv-02167 (C.D. Cal.), filed August 10, 2026, also asserts the '407 patent. Netlist's earlier suit against Kingston Technology Corporation and Kingston Technology Company, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-03047 (C.D. Cal.), filed October 16, 2026, asserts two other patents, U.S. Patents 12,373,366 and 12,762,074.
What to watch next
Watch for Kingston's response to the complaint. Watch also for any schedule the court sets. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.