Netlist has opened two new fronts against Micron on DDR5 registered DIMMs and multiplexed rank DIMMs. Neither front has produced a merits ruling. The International Trade Commission has published a notice of receipt; it has not instituted an investigation. The district-court case is a newly filed complaint. Read the dockets that way, and keep them separate from older Netlist-Micron fights on different patents.
The Central District complaint
On August 10, 2026, Netlist, Inc. sued Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. in the Central District of California, No. 8:26-cv-02167. Later docket materials name Judge John W. Holcomb. Counsel is Irell & Manella (Jason Sheasby, H. Annita Zhong, and others). Venue is pleaded off Micron's Irvine office at 18575 Jamboree Road, Suite 550. The complaint asserts two patents: 10,217,523, Multi-Mode Memory Module with Data Handlers (claim 1: a dual-mode data handler; in test/train mode it isolates DRAM and injects patterns), and 12,675,407, Memory Module with Local Clock Signals (issued July 7, 2026; claim 1: independently programmable per-group local clocks). Accused classes are Micron DDR5 RDIMMs and MRDIMMs/MCRDIMMs, servers containing them, and RCD, MRCD, DRAM, and data-buffer components. Chipset partners named in the complaint include Rambus, Montage, and Renesas. Representative SKUs include MTC40F2046S1RC64BH1, MTC20F1045S1RC80BH1, MTA18ASF2G72PZ-3G2R1, and MTC80F404VM1HC1CXE1. Count III seeks a declaratory judgment that Netlist did not make a bad-faith assertion under Idaho Code 48-1703. The prayer is section 284 damages plus treble damages, an accounting, fees under section 285, a permanent injunction in the alternative to damages, and a jury. No preliminary injunction.
The ITC receipt notice, not an investigation
The Commission received a section 337 complaint from Netlist on August 11, 2026, docketed as DN 3930, captioned Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (III). The Federal Register notice (91 FR 53278, Aug. 17, 2026) names as proposed respondents Micron Technology, Micron Semiconductor Products, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States), and Super Micro Computer. Netlist asks for a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a bond during the presidential-review period. Public-interest comments were due eight calendar days after publication. As of this writing the Commission has not instituted. Institution, if it comes, is likely around September 10.
Netlist's August 12 press release states that the ITC complaint asserts four patents: 10,025,731, 10,217,523, 12,373,366, and 12,675,407. That is a broader set than the two patents in the Central District complaint. Those four numbers remain from the press release only. The EDIS public complaint was not obtained (Login.gov wall). Do not treat them as if we had read the ITC pleading. The two overlapping patents are the ones that will have to be coordinated if the Commission institutes and the district court is asked to stay.
Micron's same-day Delaware DJ
Also on August 10, Micron Technology and Micron Semiconductor Products filed a declaratory-judgment complaint against Netlist in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01014, assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall. Counsel is Young Conaway and King & Spalding. The DJ seeks noninfringement of 9,128,632, 10,217,523, and 12,675,407. Micron asks the court to bar Netlist from seeking injunctive relief in any jurisdiction. Netlist's 2021 letters (April 28, May 19, May 28, and June 14) are cited as notice on the '523 and '632 patents. The DJ recites Netlist's July 2026 Eastern District of Texas case against Samsung on the '407 patent, No. 2:26-cv-00553, as a related case; that is a DJ recital, not a merits finding here. The '523 and '407 patents overlap the Central District case; the '632 patent appears in the DJ and not in Netlist's Central District assertion. Expect a first-to-file and convenience fight between Santa Ana and Wilmington, and expect Micron to argue that the DJ is the natural validity forum if the ITC case is instituted and the California case is stayed.
What the patents are about (high level)
The Central District complaint supplies the claim-level map for the two overlapping patents. The '523 patent is a multi-mode memory module with a data handler; claim 1's test/train mode isolates DRAM and injects patterns. The '407 patent is a memory module with local clock signals; claim 1 requires independently programmable per-group local clocks. The press release does not describe the subject matter of 10,025,731 or 12,373,366 beyond saying each reads on DDR5 RDIMMs and/or MRDIMMs. Do not treat load-isolation or PMIC characterizations as if they came from that release. Whether any accused Micron module meets any claim limitation is untested.
The Samsung license in the background
On August 5, 2026, Netlist filed an 8-K reporting that on August 4 it entered a patent cross-license with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., effective July 31, 2026. Samsung pays an upfront license fee of $239 million (about $200 million net of Korean withholding) plus quarterly license fees of up to $32.9 million (up to about $27.5 million net per quarter) for twenty calendar quarters through the second quarter of 2031, subject to a revenue-based formula, adjustments, and refund rights. The term is five years. The same 8-K reports a settlement and release of identified pending proceedings between Netlist and Samsung, a five-year supply agreement (up to $300 million of DRAM and NAND products per year, $1.5 billion aggregate), an ITC cooperation agreement under which Samsung agreed to produce certain information for Netlist to use in future ITC actions against third parties, and a securities purchase of 10 million Netlist shares by a Samsung affiliate for $1 million. That package is public SEC disclosure. It is not a finding against Micron. It does change the settlement landscape: a major supplier is now a Netlist licensee with a cooperation covenant aimed at later ITC cases.
Do not conflate the older fights
Netlist and Micron have a longer docket than this week's filings. Two matters in particular should not be folded into 8:26-cv-02167 or DN 3930. Federal Circuit No. 24-1312 is a PTAB appeal involving U.S. Patent 10,489,314. The Eastern District of Texas case No. 2:22-cv-294 is a DDR4 trial on a different patent set, which produced a $445 million verdict. Those patents, products, and records are not this case. Treating a PTAB appeal, a DDR4 verdict, and this DDR5 dual-track filing as one story will get the claim scope and the parties' leverage wrong.
The likely near-term path
The probabilistic call is familiar dual-track practice. If the Commission institutes DN 3930, expect Micron to move to stay the Central District case under the usual ITC-related stay analysis, and to press the Delaware DJ as the remaining Article III vehicle. If the Commission declines to institute, the California complaint and the Delaware DJ become the main event, and the first-to-file contest matters more. Either way, the Samsung license is likely to show up in public-interest briefing (domestic-industry and replacement-capacity arguments) and in settlement talks. None of that is a prediction that Netlist prevails on infringement or that Micron knocks the patents out.
What to watch next
The Commission's institution decision on DN 3930, which, if the usual 30-day clock from the August 11 filing holds, would fall around early September. Micron's Central District response and Netlist's Delaware DJ answer, once service is on the docket. And whether any party moves to relate, stay, or transfer among C.D. Cal., D. Del., and the ITC before the first case-management conference.