Issue No. 2
Three spatial-audio suits, two mirror-image filings, and a narrower route to provisional-dated prior art.
01 Cases Filed
New patent complaints, reported from the complaints as filed — parties, counsel of record, asserted patents, accused products, and the relief sought.
W.D. Tex. - Midland/Odessa Division7:26-cv-00312Filed August 13, 2026
Boomcloud 360, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Not yet assigned on the docket · Claims: Infringement
Defendant(s)
Apple Inc. - pleaded as a publicly traded corporation organized under the laws of California
Plaintiff
Boomcloud 360, Inc. - a Delaware corporation with a place of business at 687 South Coast Hwy 101, Suite 311, Encinitas, CA
Plaintiff's counsel
Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles - Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953), who signed the complaint; James A. Milkey (CA SBN 281283); James N. Pickens (CA SBN 307474); Jason M. Wietholter (CA SBN 337139); Kristopher Davis (CA SBN 329627); Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374); Jefferson Cummings (DC SBN 90027452). No separate local counsel appears in the signature block.
Asserted patents (3)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,524,078 | Not named in the complaint | Crosstalk Cancellation B-Chain | December 31, 2019 |
| 11,051,121 | Not named in the complaint | Spectral Defect Compensation for Crosstalk Processing of Spatial Audio Signals | Pleaded as June 29, 2022 - see flag |
| 11,533,560 | Not named in the complaint | Dynamic Rendering Device Metadata-Informed Audio Enhancement System | December 20, 2022 |
Summary
The complaint pleads that Boomcloud 'owns all right, title, and interest' in each asserted patent, and repeats that allegation in each count. No inventor, prior owner, assignment date, or reel/frame data is recited, and no chain of title is pleaded. As background the complaint states that Boomcloud holds more than 196 issued patents and that its audio solutions have been licensed and implemented by Verizon, Boost Mobile and Qualcomm, with Verizon's implementation marketed as 'Verizon Adaptive Sound.' No license terms, royalty rates or license dates are stated.
Accused products
Pleaded per patent. '078: Apple products that enhance a stereo input signal for output through left and right speakers by generating a spatially enhanced signal and correcting asymmetries in frequency response, time alignment and signal level, whether through built-in stereo-speaker spatial audio processing or, via the 'Spatialize Stereo' feature, through connected AirPods - naming the iPhone 17 and iPad Pro 11-inch M5. '121: products performing spatial audio processing for stereo audio played through built-in speakers, including crosstalk processing and generation of a mid compensation channel, naming the iPhone 17 and iPad Pro 11-inch M5 alone or with AirPods 4, AirPods 4 (ANC), AirPods Pro 2, AirPods Pro 3 and AirPods Max. '560: iPhone and iPad products that, when paired with AirPods with Spatial Audio or 'Spatialize Stereo' enabled, query the operating system for the current audio output route, identify a Bluetooth/AirPods path, and apply a route-specific enhancement before rendering. Claim charts are attached as Exhibits 2, 4 and 6.
Theories pleaded
Direct infringement is pleaded factually for each patent under 35 U.S.C. §271, though the complaint never cites §271(a) by subsection. Inducement under §271(b) and contributory infringement under §271(c) are expressly pleaded for all three patents, based on user manuals and instruction materials on Apple's website. Willfulness is pleaded for all three patents, resting on pre-suit knowledge from licensing interactions alleged to date from at least the summer of 2017, with information-sharing and technical demonstrations continuing through at least the fall of 2021, and separately on knowledge from the filing and service of the complaint. No notice letter or notice date is alleged. The doctrine of equivalents appears only in the prayer for relief, not in any count. §285 is pleaded only in the prayer. No §271(e), (f) or (g) claim is pleaded, and no marking or §287 allegation appears.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks judgment of infringement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, of each asserted patent; judgment of willful infringement; a permanent injunction against further infringement (pleaded without citation to 35 U.S.C. §283); damages, costs, expenses and pre- and post-judgment interest, including enhanced damages for willfulness; an accounting and supplemental damages; a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285 with reasonable attorneys' fees; and further relief. Each count pleads damages of 'in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention' and enhanced damages under §284. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38.
Jurisdiction & venue
Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). Venue pleaded under §§1391 and 1400(b) on allegations that Apple resides in the District and has a regular and established place of business there. Eight Texas addresses are pleaded, including Apple campuses at 12545 Riata Vista Circle and 6900 W Parmer Lane in Austin, and retail locations in Austin, West Lake Hills, San Antonio and El Paso, together with stream-of-commerce allegations. No prior venue concession or transfer history is referenced.
Noted in the complaintIssue-date discrepancy: the complaint pleads that the '121 patent issued June 29, 2022. USPTO full-text records show U.S. Patent No. 11,051,121 issued June 29, 2021. The '078 and '560 dates as pleaded match USPTO records. Also noted: the introduction and the entire prayer for relief refer to 'Defendants' in the plural although a single defendant is named, and the counts run in a different patent order than the introduction. The complaint is silent about Apple's declaratory-judgment action filed eight days earlier in the Southern District of California - it makes no reference to that action, to any first-to-file question, or to any S.D. Cal. proceeding. The two actions concern different patents: the three patents in Apple's declaratory action are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,313,820, 10,721,564 and 10,757,527, none of which is asserted here. A further internal inconsistency: the complaint states that the parties had 'an NDA,' but no NDA with Apple is pleaded anywhere earlier in the document, whereas the companion Google complaint does plead a June 2016 NDA.
W.D. Tex. - Midland/Odessa Division7:26-cv-00313Filed August 13, 2026
Boomcloud 360, Inc. v. Google LLC
Not yet assigned on the docket · Claims: Infringement
Defendant(s)
Google LLC - pleaded on information and belief as a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., with an established place of business at 500 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas. Alphabet Inc. is referenced but is not named as a defendant.
Plaintiff
Boomcloud 360, Inc. - a Delaware corporation with a place of business at 687 South Coast Hwy 101, Suite 311, Encinitas, CA
Plaintiff's counsel
Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles - Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953), who signed the complaint; James A. Milkey (CA SBN 281283); James N. Pickens (CA SBN 307474); Jason M. Wietholter (CA SBN 337139); Kristopher Davis (CA SBN 329627); Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374); Jefferson Cummings (DC SBN 90027452). No separate local counsel appears in the signature block.
Asserted patents (3)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,524,078 | Not named in the complaint | Crosstalk Cancellation B-Chain | December 31, 2019 |
| 11,051,121 | Not named in the complaint | Spectral Defect Compensation for Crosstalk Processing of Spatial Audio Signals | Pleaded as June 29, 2022 - see flag |
| 11,533,560 | Not named in the complaint | Dynamic Rendering Device Metadata-Informed Audio Enhancement System | December 20, 2022 |
Summary
The complaint pleads that Boomcloud 'owns all right, title, and interest' in each asserted patent, and repeats that allegation in each count. No inventor, prior owner, assignment date, or reel/frame data is recited, and no chain of title is pleaded. As background the complaint states that Boomcloud holds more than 196 issued patents and that its audio solutions have been licensed and implemented by Verizon, Boost Mobile and Qualcomm, with Verizon's implementation marketed as 'Verizon Adaptive Sound.' No license terms, royalty rates or license dates are stated.
Accused products
Pleaded per patent. '078: Google products that enhance a stereo input signal for output through left and right speakers by generating a spatially enhanced signal and correcting asymmetries in frequency response, time alignment and signal level, whether through built-in stereo-speaker processing or, via the 'Spatial Audio' feature, through connected Pixel Buds - naming the Pixel 10 Pro. '121: products and services performing spatial audio processing on a stereo signal, including crosstalk processing and generation of a mid compensation channel, naming the Pixel 10 Pro alone or with Pixel Buds Pro 2, Pixel Buds Pro and Pixel Buds 2a. '560: the accused-product description is word-for-word identical to the '078 description. Claim charts are attached as Exhibits 2, 4 and 6.
Theories pleaded
Direct infringement is pleaded factually for each patent under 35 U.S.C. §271 without citing §271(a) by subsection. Inducement under §271(b) and contributory infringement under §271(c) are expressly pleaded for all three patents. Willfulness is pleaded for all three patents. The pleaded knowledge basis is a non-disclosure agreement alleged to have been entered in June 2016, under which the complaint alleges the parties engaged in technical demonstrations and discussed implementing Boomcloud's technology, and continued sharing confidential information over the following several years; no end date is given. No notice letter or notice date is alleged. The doctrine of equivalents appears only in the prayer. §285 is pleaded only in the prayer. No breach-of-contract or trade-secret claim is asserted despite the NDA allegations.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks judgment of infringement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, of each asserted patent; judgment of willful infringement; a permanent injunction against further infringement (pleaded without citation to 35 U.S.C. §283); damages, costs, expenses and pre- and post-judgment interest, including enhanced damages for willfulness; an accounting and supplemental damages; a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285 with reasonable attorneys' fees; and further relief. Each count pleads damages of 'in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention' and enhanced damages under §284. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38.
Jurisdiction & venue
Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). Venue pleaded under §§1391 and 1400(b) on allegations that Google resides in the District and has a regular and established place of business there. The only specific venue fact pleaded is the single Austin address at 500 West 2nd Street, described as an established place of business at which Google can be served, together with stream-of-commerce allegations.
Noted in the complaintIssue-date discrepancy: the complaint pleads that the '121 patent issued June 29, 2022. USPTO full-text records show U.S. Patent No. 11,051,121 issued June 29, 2021. The '078 and '560 dates as pleaded match USPTO records. Also noted: the introduction and the entire prayer for relief refer to 'Defendants' in the plural although a single defendant is named, and the counts run in a different patent order than the introduction. The accused-product description for the '560 patent is identical to the description for the '078 patent; no product characteristics unique to the '560 claims are pleaded, in contrast to the companion Apple complaint, where the '560 count adds distinct output-route-detection allegations. Venue rests on a single pleaded Austin address, against eight addresses pleaded in the Apple case.
E.D. Tex. - Marshall Division2:26-cv-00693Filed August 13, 2026
Boomcloud 360, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Research America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Not yet assigned on the docket · Claims: Infringement
Defendant(s)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. - pleaded on information and belief as a corporation organized under the laws of South Korea, with its principal place of business in Suwon-Si, Gyonggi-DoSamsung Research America, Inc. - pleaded as a California corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California and an office at 6105 Tennyson Pkwy, Plano, Texas; pleaded as a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co.Samsung Electronics America, Inc. - pleaded as a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey and an office at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, Texas; pleaded as a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co.
Plaintiff
Boomcloud 360, Inc. - a Delaware corporation with a place of business at 687 South Coast Hwy 101, Suite 311, Encinitas, CA
Plaintiff's counsel
Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles - Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953), who signed the complaint; James A. Milkey (CA SBN 281283); James N. Pickens (CA SBN 307474); Jason M. Wietholter (CA SBN 337139); Kristopher Davis (CA SBN 329627); Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374); Jefferson Cummings (DC SBN 90027452). No separate local counsel appears in the signature block.
Asserted patents (3)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,524,078 | Not named in the complaint | Crosstalk Cancellation B-Chain | December 31, 2019 |
| 11,051,121 | Not named in the complaint | Spectral Defect Compensation for Crosstalk Processing of Spatial Audio Signals | Pleaded as June 29, 2022 - see flag |
| 11,533,560 | Not named in the complaint | Dynamic Rendering Device Metadata-Informed Audio Enhancement System | December 20, 2022 |
Summary
The complaint pleads that Boomcloud 'owns all right, title, and interest' in each asserted patent, and repeats that allegation in each count. No inventor, prior owner, assignment date, or reel/frame data is recited, and no chain of title is pleaded. As background the complaint states that Boomcloud holds more than 196 issued patents and that its audio solutions have been licensed and implemented by Verizon, Boost Mobile and Qualcomm, with Verizon's implementation marketed as 'Verizon Adaptive Sound.' No license terms, royalty rates or license dates are stated.
Accused products
Pleaded per patent. The '078 and '560 counts use identical language: Samsung products that enhance a stereo input signal for output through left and right speakers by generating a spatially enhanced signal and correcting asymmetries in frequency response, time alignment and signal level, whether through built-in stereo-speaker processing or, via the '360 Audio' feature, through connected Galaxy Buds - naming the Galaxy S25 Ultra and Galaxy Tab S10 FE. The '121 count covers products and services performing spatial audio processing on a stereo signal, including crosstalk processing and generation of a mid compensation channel, naming the Galaxy S25 Ultra and Galaxy Tab S10 FE alone or with the Galaxy Buds3 Pro, Galaxy Buds3, Galaxy Buds2 Pro and Galaxy Buds Pro. Claim charts are referenced as Exhibits 2, 4 and 6, none of which is available in RECAP.
Theories pleaded
Each count pleads liability under 35 U.S.C. §271 for making, using, offering for sale, selling and importing, without expressly citing §271(a); inducement under §271(b), based on user manuals and instruction materials; and contributory infringement under §271(c). Willfulness and enhanced damages under §284 are pleaded on the basis of pre-suit knowledge from licensing discussions, and §285 is pleaded in the prayer. The complaint alleges that Samsung and Boomcloud entered a non-disclosure agreement in April 2017, engaged in technical demonstrations, and continued sharing confidential information under multiple NDAs over the following several years without reaching a licence. No contract or trade-secret claim is brought on those allegations. The doctrine of equivalents appears only in the prayer, not in any count. No §271(f) or §271(g) claim is pleaded.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks judgment of infringement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, of each asserted patent; judgment of willful infringement; a permanent injunction against further infringement (pleaded without citation to 35 U.S.C. §283); damages, costs, expenses and pre- and post-judgment interest, including enhanced damages for willfulness; an accounting and supplemental damages; a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285 with reasonable attorneys' fees; and further relief. Each count pleads damages of 'in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention' and enhanced damages under §284. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38.
Jurisdiction & venue
Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). Venue pleaded under §§1391 and 1400(b) on three bases: that Samsung Electronics Co. is a foreign corporation and venue is proper as to a foreign defendant in any district under §1391(c)(3); that Samsung Research America and Samsung Electronics America have committed acts of infringement in the District and have regular and established places of business there, identified as the two Plano addresses; and that Samsung has admitted or not contested venue in other patent actions in the District and has asserted its own patents there, citing a December 2025 case Samsung brought against Oura Health Oy.
Noted in the complaintMaterial internal inconsistency in the complaint. The introduction defines the 'Asserted Patents' as U.S. Patent Nos. 10,511,909 and 10,009,705, but no count is pleaded on either of those patents. The three counts instead assert U.S. Patent Nos. 10,524,078, 11,051,121 and 11,533,560, which are never brought within the defined term. The prayer for relief then requests judgment on 'each of the Asserted Patents' - the defined term that captures only the two patents named in the introduction. Separately, the '078 and '560 counts recite word-for-word identical accused-product descriptions for two different patents; every count refers to 'Defendant' in the singular although three defendants are named; and the complaint pleads the '121 patent as having issued June 29, 2022, where USPTO records show June 29, 2021.
S.D. Cal.3:26-cv-04492Filed August 5, 2026
Apple Inc. v. Boomcloud 360, Inc.
District Judge Robert S. Huie; referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher · Claims: Declaratory judgment of non-infringement (three counts)
Defendant(s)
Boomcloud 360, Inc. - pleaded on information and belief as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 687 South Coast Hwy 101, Suite 311, Encinitas, California
Plaintiff
Apple Inc. - a California corporation with its principal place of business at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California
Plaintiff's counsel
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP - Nathaniel R. Scharn (SBN 304836), Irvine, who signed the complaint, and Jaysen S. Chung (SBN 280708), San Francisco; with Brian A. Rosenthal and Allen Kathir of the firm's New York office, each marked pro hac vice forthcoming.
Asserted patents (3)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,313,820 | Zachary Seldess | Sub-Band Spatial Audio Enhancement | June 4, 2019 - from Application No. 15/646,821 filed July 11, 2017; Boomcloud named as sole initial assignee |
| 10,721,564 | Zachary Seldess; James Tracey; Alan Kraemer | Subband Spatial and Crosstalk Cancellation for Audio Reporoduction [sic, as it appears on the patent] | July 21, 2020 - from Application No. 16/192,522 filed November 15, 2018; Boomcloud named as sole initial assignee |
| 10,757,527 | Zachary Seldess | Crosstalk Cancellation B-Chain | August 25, 2020 - from Application No. 16/591,352 filed October 2, 2019; Boomcloud named as sole initial assignee |
Summary
Apple pleads that Boomcloud is the applicant and named sole initial assignee of all three patents, that Zachary Seldess of San Diego is an inventor on each, and that the '564 patent additionally names James Tracey and Alan Kraemer. Apple pleads only that Boomcloud 'claims to own' the patents and does not concede ownership; standing here rests on Apple's case-or-controversy allegations rather than on patent ownership.
Accused products
Apple seeks a declaration as to its own products - the devices Boomcloud identified in its March 19, 2026 infringement contentions in the carrier cases. The complaint lists them: iPhone 11 through iPhone 17 Pro Max and iPhone Air; iPad Air 4th and 5th generation and the 11-inch and 13-inch M2 and M3 models; and iPad Pro 11-inch and 12.9/13-inch models through the M5 - alone or in combination with AirPods 3, AirPods 4, AirPods 4 (ANC), AirPods Max, AirPods Pro through AirPods Pro 3, and Beats Fit Pro, Beats Flex, Beats Powerbeats Fit, Beats Powerbeats Pro 2, Beats Solo 4, Beats Studio Buds+, Beats Studio Pro and Beats Pill. The functionality at issue is Apple's Spatialize Stereo and other audio features. The claims at issue as pleaded are claims 1-27 of the '820 patent, 1-21 of the '564 patent and 1-30 of the '527 patent.
Theories pleaded
Declaratory judgment of non-infringement only, under 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202: no direct or indirect infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Apple pleads expressly that it has not caused, directed, requested or facilitated any infringement with specific intent, and that the accused devices are not designed for use in any infringing combination and have substantial non-infringing uses. Each count identifies the specific claim limitations Apple contends are absent. NO invalidity or unenforceability claim is pleaded, and no affirmative counterclaim is asserted. §285 is pleaded.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Apple does not infringe the three patents directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; separate declarations that Apple does not induce and does not contribute to infringement; an order declaring Apple the prevailing party and the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285; costs and attorneys' fees; and further relief. No declaration of invalidity is sought. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38(b).
Jurisdiction & venue
Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338, 2201 and 2202. Personal jurisdiction over Boomcloud pleaded on its principal place of business in Encinitas, within the Southern District of California; its status as applicant and assignee of all three patents with the Encinitas address on each patent face; prosecution of the patents by Fenwick & West LLP including California-based attorneys; assignment records naming a correspondent in Mountain View, California; and Boomcloud's use of California-admitted counsel in the carrier and customer cases. Venue under §1391 because a substantial part of the events occurred in the District, where Apple also pleads that the research and development for the accused functionality, and the relevant personnel and documentation, are located.
Noted in the complaintThe pleaded basis for the controversy is not pre-suit correspondence. Apple pleads the opposite - that it 'received no notice of any alleged infringement' of each patent by the accused devices 'before Boomcloud served its infringement contentions in the Carrier Cases.' No licensing demand or pre-suit letter between Boomcloud and Apple is alleged. The controversy is built instead on Boomcloud's suits against Apple's carriers and retailers: complaints filed January 30, 2026 against AT&T entities (2:26-cv-00082, E.D. Tex.) and T-Mobile USA (2:26-cv-00080, E.D. Tex.); infringement contentions served March 19, 2026 in each of those cases mapping every limitation to Apple devices and to Apple's Spatialize Stereo feature; and further complaints filed June 17, 2026 against Walmart, Target and Best Buy. Apple pleads that it is among the 'other companies' Boomcloud alleged were directly infringing. Note that the three patents in this declaratory action are NOT the three patents Boomcloud asserted against Apple, Google and Samsung on August 13, 2026; there is no overlap between the two sets.
D. Del.1:26-cv-01014Filed August 10, 2026
Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.
District Judge Jennifer L. Hall per the docket; the complaint bears the suffix -UNA (unassigned at filing) · Claims: Declaratory judgment of non-infringement (three counts)
Defendant(s)
Netlist, Inc. - pleaded as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 111 Academy Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California
Plaintiff
Micron Technology, Inc. (Delaware corporation) and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (Idaho corporation), both with a principal place of business at 8000 S. Federal Way, Boise, Idaho
Plaintiff's counsel
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington - Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093) and Daniel G. Mackrides (No. 7230), as Delaware counsel and signatories. Of counsel: King & Spalding LLP - Natalie Arbaugh (Dallas) and Michael R. Rueckheim (San Francisco).
Asserted patents (3)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9,128,632 | Not named in the complaint | Not stated in the complaint | September 8, 2015 - from Application No. 13/952,599 filed July 27, 2013 |
| 10,217,523 | Not named in the complaint | Not stated in this complaint (given as 'Multi-Mode Memory Module with Data Handlers' in the companion Netlist complaint) | February 26, 2019 - from Application No. 14/229,844 filed March 29, 2014 |
| 12,675,407 | Not named in the complaint | Not stated in this complaint (given as 'Memory Module with Local Clock Signals' in the companion Netlist complaint) | July 7, 2026 - from Application No. 18/935,410 filed November 1, 2024 |
Summary
The complaint pleads a case or controversy arising from Netlist's assertions: an April 28, 2021 letter from Netlist to Micron's President and CEO in Boise alleging that Micron's DIMM products infringe numerous Netlist patents including the '523 and '632 patents and demanding a license; a May 19, 2021 letter from Netlist's Chief Licensing Officer seeking royalty-bearing licenses for RDIMM, LRDIMM and NVDIMM products; and follow-up letters of May 28 and June 14, 2021. The complaint expressly recites that Netlist asserted claim 1 of the '523 patent and claim 1 of the '407 patent against Micron's DDR5 RDIMM and MRDIMM products in Central District of California case 8:26-cv-02167 'filed today.' It also lists six pending Delaware cases between the parties - C.A. Nos. 25-629-JLH, 25-863-JLH, 25-942-JLH, 26-641-JLH, 26-246-JLH and 26-362-JLH - and alleges that multiple Netlist patents asserted against Micron have been cancelled by the USPTO in inter partes and post-grant review, without giving proceeding numbers.
Accused products
Micron's own DDR5 products are the products at issue; Micron seeks a declaration that they do not infringe. The complaint recites that Netlist has accused Micron's DIMM products generally and, in the parallel Central District of California action, Micron's DDR5 RDIMM and MRDIMM products. For each patent Micron quotes independent claim 1 element by element and pleads that its DDR5 products do not employ all of the limitations.
Theories pleaded
Declaratory judgment of non-infringement only - literal and under the doctrine of equivalents, direct under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) and indirect under §271(b)-(c), as to Micron, its customers and end users. No invalidity count and no unenforceability count is pleaded. The specific non-infringement contentions identified are, for the '632 patent, the buffer-circuit limitation requiring each buffer circuit to determine a time interval based on signals received during a write operation and to time transmission of read data by that interval and a read latency parameter; for the '523 patent, the first-mode and second-mode control-module and data-module limitations; and for the '407 patent, the limitation requiring generation of local clocks with independently programmable phase relationships output to a corresponding group of memory devices and not to any other group.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks a declaration of no direct or indirect infringement of the '632, '523 and '407 patents and no liability for damages or injunctive relief; a declaration that Netlist is barred from seeking or enforcing injunctive relief against Micron, its affiliates, or its direct or indirect customers and end users in any jurisdiction as to those patents; an injunction barring Netlist from seeking or enforcing such relief in any jurisdiction; judgment for Micron on each claim; a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285 with costs, expenses and fees; pre- and post-judgment interest; and further relief. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38 and D. Del. LR 38.1.
Jurisdiction & venue
Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338(a) and 2201(a). Personal jurisdiction asserted on the basis that Netlist is a Delaware corporation; venue under §1391(b)-(c) because Netlist is subject to personal jurisdiction in the District.
Noted in the complaintThe docket cause is coded '35:271 Patent Infringement,' which understates the pleading - the document is captioned 'Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement' and pleads only declaratory counts. Two drafting points: the signature block reads 'Attorneys for Defendants Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.' although Micron are the plaintiffs here; and the complaint gives two different dates, July 6 and July 7, 2026, for Netlist's filing against Samsung in E.D. Tex. case 2:26-cv-00553. Patent titles and inventors are not stated anywhere in the complaint body.
C.D. Cal.8:26-cv-02167Filed August 10, 2026
Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.
Not yet assigned on the docket · Claims: Infringement (two counts), plus declaratory relief under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act
Defendant(s)
Micron Technology, Inc. - pleaded as a Delaware corporationMicron Semiconductor Products, Inc. - pleaded as an Idaho corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Micron Technology
Plaintiff
Netlist, Inc. - a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 111 Academy Way, Suite 100, Irvine, California
Plaintiff's counsel
Irell & Manella LLP - Jason Sheasby (SBN 205455), H. Annita Zhong (SBN 266924), Andrew Strabone (SBN 301659), who signed the complaint, and Andrew Henderson (SBN 347596), Los Angeles; Blair A. Silver, Washington DC, pro hac vice forthcoming. No separate local counsel appears.
Asserted patents (2)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,217,523 | Not named in the complaint | Multi-Mode Memory Module with Data Handlers | February 26, 2019 - claiming priority through a chain to three provisionals filed April 14, 2008 |
| 12,675,407 | Not named in the complaint | Memory Module with Local Clock Signals | July 7, 2026 - claiming priority through a chain to a provisional filed July 27, 2013 |
Summary
Netlist pleads that it owns the asserted patents and recites a history of prior verdicts: an April 21, 2023 E.D. Tex. jury finding that Samsung willfully infringed five Netlist patents, with $303.15 million awarded; a May 23, 2024 E.D. Tex. jury award of $445 million against Micron; and a November 22, 2024 E.D. Tex. jury finding that Samsung willfully infringed three other Netlist patents, with $118 million awarded. The third count is pleaded anticipatorily: Netlist alleges that Micron has filed suits in Idaho accusing Netlist of bad-faith assertion under Idaho Code §48-1703, citing a June 2025 Idaho filing concerning six other patents, and pleads that it is only a matter of time before Micron brings a similar suit as to the '523 and '407 patents. No inventors are named.
Accused products
Defined as Micron's DDR5 products, including RDIMMs, MRDIMMs and other memory modules having materially the same relevant structures and designs; products containing them, such as servers and computing systems; and components including registering clock drivers (RCD or MRCD), DRAM chips, interface dies and data buffers. Twenty-one specific part numbers are listed, among them MTC40F2046S1RC64BH1, MTC20F1045S1RC80BH1, MTA18ASF2G72PZ-3G2R1, MTA36ASF8G72PZ-3G2F1 and MTC80F404VM1HC1CXE1.
Theories pleaded
Direct infringement of at least claim 1 of each patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and importing the accused products; inducement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b); and contributory infringement under §271(c). Willfulness is pleaded for both patents. For the '523 patent Netlist pleads that it presented the patented technologies to Micron at least as of February and/or April 2015 and that Micron had actual knowledge no later than April 28, 2021 through an exhibit to Netlist's letter of that date. For the '407 patent it pleads actual notice at least since the filing of the complaint, and as early as issuance, with prior awareness of the underlying application pleaded on information and belief. The infringement allegations rely in part on functionality contained in JEDEC specifications, but the complaint expressly states that Netlist is not relying on essentiality to establish infringement and that neither patent is standard-essential. No doctrine of equivalents allegation appears.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks judgments that Micron infringes the '523 and '407 patents; damages under 35 U.S.C. §284; findings that the infringement of each patent was willful, with enhanced damages under §284; a finding that the case is exceptional under §285 with reasonable attorneys' fees; an accounting and supplemental damages with pre- and post-judgment interest; a declaration that Netlist has not made a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement and is compliant with Idaho Code §48-1703; a judgment that Micron is not entitled to damages under Idaho Code §48-1706; and, in the alternative to damages under §284, a permanent injunction under §283. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38(b).
Jurisdiction & venue
Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338, with the declaratory counts pleaded under §§1331, 1338, 1442, 1454 and 2201(a) and supplemental jurisdiction under §1367 to the extent necessary. Venue under §§1391(b) and (c) and/or 1400(b) on allegations that defendants have committed acts of infringement in the District and maintain a regular and established place of business for semiconductor engineering services at 18575 Jamboree Road, Suite 550, Irvine, California; the complaint embeds a photograph dated August 6, 2026 of that location.
Noted in the complaintThe docket cause is coded '35:145 Patent Infringement.' That code denotes a civil action against the USPTO Director; it is not supported by the pleading. No USPTO official is a party, no Patent Office decision is challenged, and the document is captioned 'Complaint for Patent Infringement.' The code appears to be a civil-cover-sheet artifact. The complaint runs 58 pages with element-by-element allegations, claim-chart-style figures and photographs.
02 From the Federal Circuit
Decisions read in full this cycle — posture, what the court decided, and the disposition.
Fed. Cir.No. 2025-1752Decided August 10, 2026Precedential
Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc.
Before Lourie, Schall and Taranto, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Lourie. No concurrence or dissent.
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2023-01369. Align petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1-15 of Dental Monitoring's U.S. Patent 10,755,409. The Board held all fifteen claims unpatentable as obvious over the combination of a WIPO publication (Salah), a U.S. published application (Carrier) and a published paper on convolutional neural networks (Maninis). Dental Monitoring appealed. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(4)(A).
Patents and claims at issue
U.S. Patent 10,755,409, claims 1-15, on a method for acquiring and analysing an image of a patient's dental arch using a deep learning device, comparing an image attribute against a setpoint and sending a message to guide the operator to acquire a new image. The dispute turned on a second patent - the Carrier reference, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0068923, and its provisional application.
What the court decided
The question was whether Carrier qualified as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(d)(2) as of its provisional's filing date. The '409 patent's effective filing date fell between Carrier's provisional and its non-provisional, so Carrier's prior-art status depended entirely on the earlier date. The Board, following its own precedential decision in Penumbra Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., had held that Dynamic Drinkware's written-description requirement applies only to pre-AIA law, and that under §102(d)(2) a reference patent takes the earlier date so long as it satisfies the 'ministerial requirements' of §§119 and 120 and the earlier application describes the subject matter relied upon. The Federal Circuit reversed that approach on the statutory text. Section 102(d)(2) confers the earlier date only if the patent 'is entitled to claim a right of priority' under §119, and §119(e)(1) in turn allows priority from a provisional only if the invention is disclosed there 'in the manner provided by [§]112(a).' The court held that '[t]he statutory text expressly conditions entitlement to priority on satisfaction of §112's written description requirement,' that §102(d) 'therefore incorporates that substantive requirement,' and that nothing in the text 'exempts prior art determinations from §119(e)(1)'s entitlement requirements or otherwise creates a different, less demanding 'ministerial' standard for prior art purposes.' Reading 'entitled to' as mere procedural claiming would render the phrase superfluous. On Align's argument that Dynamic Drinkware was confined to pre-AIA §102(e), the court said Align 'confuses a reservation of decision with a holding on the merits,' and that the underlying concern - that a challenger should not be able to backdate prior art by claiming priority from an earlier application that would not have supported a patent on the claimed invention - 'still remains valid.' On §100(i), the court held that provision 'determines what effective filing date for a claimed invention means; it does not alter the requirements for determining when a reference is entitled to an earlier effective filing date under §102(d).' Legislative history describing the requirements as 'ministerial' could not displace clear text. The court also noted that its earlier Rule 36 affirmance in the Penumbra appeal established only that the judgment below was correct and 'has no precedential value.' Because the Board never determined whether Carrier's provisional supplies written description support, the court remanded for those findings rather than reversing outright. Two scope limits are flagged in footnotes: claims 1, 7 and 12 were held ineligible in a related July 7, 2026 decision, so the Board need not address them on remand, and the public accessibility of the Maninis reference was resolved in a July 21, 2026 decision and need not be revisited.
VACATED AND REMANDED. Costs to Appellant.
Fed. Cir.No. 2025-1371Decided August 14, 2026Published
The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc.
Before Dyk and Reyna, Circuit Judges, and Bissoon, Chief District Judge (W.D. Pa., sitting by designation). Opinion by Judge Dyk. No concurrence or dissent.
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2023-01014. TVision petitioned for inter partes review of fourteen claims of Nielsen's U.S. Patent No. 11,470,243. Nielsen disclaimed the three challenged independent claims in its preliminary response, and the Board instituted on dependent claims 4-6, 8, 11-14 and 18-20. In a final written decision of January 6, 2025 the Board found the Tian reference reasonably pertinent analogous art without reaching the field-of-endeavour prong, and held all challenged claims unpatentable on both obviousness grounds. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(4)(A).
Patents and claims at issue
U.S. Patent No. 11,470,243, 'Methods and Apparatus to Capture Images,' instituted claims 4-6, 8, 11-14 and 18-20, with claims 4-6 the focus of the appeal. The technology is audience measurement: a camera-based device that counts television audience members from reduced-resolution images and identifies individuals by comparing facial signatures. The prior art at issue was Tian, a scientific publication titled 'Evaluation of Face Resolution for Expression Analysis.'
What the court decided
Two issues. On analogous art, Nielsen argued the Board violated the APA by resting on the 'reasonably pertinent' prong when the petition argued only same field of endeavour. The court found no error 'for three independent reasons': the two prongs are separate tests but the evidence and analysis may overlap, and the same expert evidence was germane to both; there is 'no requirement for a petitioner's analogous-art theory to be made expressly; such a theory may be implicit in the petition,' and the Board 'may make its own finding as to the field of endeavor or problem confronted by the inventors ... even if its finding differs from the positions argued for by the parties'; and Nielsen addressed both prongs in its response and conceded at argument that it identified no evidence or argument it was deprived of presenting, so any error was harmless. On the merits of reasonable pertinence, reviewed for substantial evidence, Nielsen argued the analysis had to be tethered to the problems the specification expressly identifies - frequent activation of illumination sources. The court rejected that: 'The problems confronting an inventor are not limited to those expressly identified in a patent, and a patent may be directed to multiple problems.' Because the challenged claims 'do not recite a light source,' it 'would be inappropriate to limit the relevant problem to reducing light-source use when the claims themselves are not limited to the presence of a light source,' quoting KSR that 'What matters is the objective reach of the claim.' Substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the patent is directed to problems in image processing and facial detection, and that Tian shares that purpose. On obviousness, the court held claim 4 recites reducing a resolution and 'is not limited to binning,' so Tian's down-sampling suffices; claim 4 imposes no requirement that only the first image be reduced or that reduction occur as part of rather than before facial analysis; and claims 5 and 6 impose no requirement of a full-resolution second image. Expert testimony that reducing resolution saves processing resources and time was substantial evidence of a motivation to combine on both grounds.
AFFIRMED. No costs line appears in the opinion.
Fed. Cir.No. 2025-1121Decided August 4, 2026Precedential
Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLC
Before Moore, Chief Judge, Prost, Circuit Judge, and Seeborg, District Judge (N.D. Cal., sitting by designation). Opinion by Chief Judge Moore.
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 1:23-cv-24517-DSL, Judge David S. Leibowitz, from the grant of a preliminary injunction barring Import Global from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell or importing its Neat Socket product and products not more than colourably different, and from inducing others to do the same. The district court had referred the motion to a magistrate judge and adopted reports and recommendations on claim construction and on the injunction. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1292(c)(1).
Patents and claims at issue
U.S. Patent No. 9,509,080, claim 19, directed to an indoor electrical wall outlet cover that permits use of the outlet while concealing the contact openings. The disputed terms were 'backplate' and 'pin.'
What the court decided
The court vacated on claim construction and did not reach irreparable harm on the merits. On 'backplate,' it rejected both the district court's construction, which defined the term in relation to the frontplate, and Import Global's proposed construction, which defined it in relation to the wall outlet, holding that both 'impose spatial reference requirements ... that the specification does not require.' Because the written description defines cover thickness in relation to the backplate, the court construed 'backplate' as 'the component forming the cover with the frontplate, such that the maximum thickness of the cover is the distance, at the central portion of the cover, between the frontplate and the component,' and held in a footnote that the term does not in all instances require electrical prongs, since claim 19 adds that limitation and it is 'highly disfavored to construe terms in a way that renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous.' On 'pin,' the court held the district court had improperly converted the term into a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The term lacks the word 'means,' so the presumption against §112(f) applied; the written description defines 'pin' in structural terms and the parties did not dispute that a skilled artisan understands it as a structure, so the presumption was not overcome. The court also declined to adopt a purely functional construction, reasoning that 'Not everything that physically and electrically connects the electrical wires to the corresponding electrical prongs is a pin,' and that Import Global's 'mechanical system' construction found no support in the specification; seeing neither lexicography nor disavowal, it gave 'pin' its plain and ordinary meaning. On irreparable harm the court held only that the district court 'erred to the extent it relied on a presumption of irreparable harm when a clear showing of patent validity and infringement has been made,' stating that 'this presumption cannot be justified after eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.' and that although eBay and Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp. involved permanent injunctions, 'we see no reason to depart from their holdings in the preliminary injunction context.' The court noted it was not clear the district court had actually applied the presumption to its fact findings, and left the issue open on remand.
VACATED AND REMANDED. Costs to Import Global.
Fed. Cir.No. 2023-2427Decided August 11, 2026Order on petition for rehearing en banc - not a merits opinion
Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc. - order denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc
Per curiam, before Moore, Chief Judge, and Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, Cunningham and Stark, Circuit Judges; Circuit Judge Newman did not participate. Judge Cunningham, joined by Judge Hughes, concurred in the denial. Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judge Reyna, dissented from the denial. Judges Stoll and Stark dissented from the denial without opinion.
Procedural posture
This document disposes of petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc; it is not a merits decision. The underlying appeal was from the District of Maine, No. 1:22-cv-00091-JDL, Chief Judge Jon D. Levy, which granted summary judgment of non-infringement. A panel affirmed at 166 F.4th 981 (Fed. Cir. 2026), with Chief Judge Moore dissenting. Range of Motion petitioned for rehearing en banc; the court invited a response and granted leave to five amici. The order states that the petition was referred to the merits panel and then to the circuit judges in regular active service, and that 'The court conducted a poll on request, and the poll failed.'
Patents and claims at issue
U.S. Patent No. D802,155, a design patent on a handheld massage device, embodied in the Rolflex product. The accused design is the Armaid2.
What the court decided
The court decided one thing: it denied both petitions. No merits holding, standard of review or doctrinal rule is announced by the court in this document, and the reasoning appears only in the separate opinions respecting the denial, which bind no one. Judge Cunningham, concurring, wrote that 'The panel decision is consistent with longstanding Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent' and that assessing whether two designs are substantially the same 'necessarily involves accounting for the ways in which they are similar and different'; she characterised the disagreement as 'one of line-drawing: How easy is "truly easy-to-decide"?', said that if district courts grant judgment where a genuine dispute remains 'the remedy is not to throw out years of well-settled design patent law but to reverse the decisions of those courts when they are appealed,' and added that because the district court had also conducted a three-way comparison to the prior art, 'An en banc revision of the test as explained in Egyptian Goddess would have no impact on the ultimate outcome.' She also wrote that claim construction, including subsidiary findings on functionality, is 'both a proper and necessary component of the design patent infringement analysis.' Chief Judge Moore, dissenting, wrote that 'We have messed up design patent infringement and essentially eliminated any role for the jury over what are quintessential jury-type fact questions,' identifying two errors: treating the functional-versus-ornamental determination as part of claim construction, when 'The entirety of a design patent is a series of pictures' and the same functionality question is a jury issue in the validity context; and a single sentence in Egyptian Goddess that she said 'inadvertently inverted the Supreme Court's infringement test,' shifting the frame from whether designs are substantially similar in overall appearance to whether they are 'sufficiently distinct' or 'plainly dissimilar.' She urged a return to the ordinary observer test of Gorham Co. v. White and would hold that 'Questions of aesthetic appearance, ornamentality, and functionality all belong to the jury as part of the infringement determination.'
IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for panel rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. No costs line appears.
03 Monetization & Market
Reporting on the funding, brokerage, and policy developments that shape how patents are put to work.
ip frayAugust 5, 2026
Netlist and Samsung settle multi-venue patent dispute with five-year memory cross-license
Netlist announced a five-year alliance with Samsung comprising a patent cross-license, a memory product supply arrangement, and technology cooperation, ending all pending litigation between the two companies. On a conference call, Netlist CFO Gail Sasaki said the deal delivers $239 million gross plus net license fees of up to $750 million payable in 20 installments; Samsung also agreed to purchase 10 million shares of Netlist common stock, and will supply Netlist with DRAM and NAND products while gaining access to Netlist's server DIMM and High Bandwidth Memory patents. The parties had litigated since 2021, when Netlist sued in the Eastern District of Texas, producing a $303 million jury award against Samsung in April 2023, followed by Netlist ITC complaints, Samsung IPR petitions at the PTAB, and a Samsung antitrust complaint in the District of Delaware over JEDEC-related RAND terms. Netlist VP of IP Strategy Richard Kim said the settlement frees resources to continue enforcement against other companies. The agreement includes an ITC cooperation provision under which Samsung will supply information Netlist can use in other ITC proceedings, and does not resolve Netlist's dispute with Micron.
PR Newswire (Netlist, Inc.)August 12, 2026
Netlist files ITC action against Micron, Supermicro, HPE and Lenovo
Netlist announced it has initiated a proceeding at the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking exclusion and cease and desist orders against Micron, Supermicro, HPE and Lenovo, based on four Netlist patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,025,731; 10,217,523; 12,373,366; and 12,675,407. Netlist simultaneously filed a district court action against Micron in the Central District of California asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 10,217,523 and 12,675,407. Netlist states that each asserted patent reads on DDR5 RDIMMs and/or MRDIMMs. CEO C.K. Hong said Micron's competitors have licensed Netlist patents for years and that, because Micron manufactures the accused memory products overseas, remedial orders barring importation are the appropriate remedy. Netlist is represented by Latham & Watkins, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, and Irell & Manella. The release notes that ITC cases proceed on an expedited basis, commonly reaching trial within a year.
ReutersJuly 31, 2026
Delaware jury awards NEC $20.5 million against Peloton on streaming patent
A federal jury in the District of Delaware found on July 31, 2026 that Peloton owes NEC Corp. $20.5 million for infringing an NEC patent covering technology for distributing digital media to multiple devices simultaneously. The jury agreed with NEC that Peloton's Bike and Tread exercise equipment infringe the asserted patent, and rejected Peloton's positions that it did not infringe and that the patent was invalid. NEC first sued in 2022; the case is NEC Corp. v. Peloton Interactive Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00987. NEC was represented by Robert Maier, Jennifer Tempesta, Michael Knierim, Thomas Natsume and Lance Goodman of Baker Botts; Peloton was represented by Robert Haslam, Richard Rainey and Philip Irwin of Covington & Burling. Reuters noted that Peloton settled a separate streaming-technology patent dispute with Dish Network for $75 million in 2023.
IPWatchdogJuly 28, 2026
UK Supreme Court revives Tesla's claims that the Avanci 5G pool license does not satisfy FRAND obligations
On July 27, 2026 the UK Supreme Court ruled in Tesla, Inc. v. InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., reviving Tesla's claims that InterDigital's 5G vehicle-communications standard-essential patents are not being offered on FRAND terms through the Avanci pool, and upholding UK jurisdiction to set global FRAND terms. Tesla brought the proceedings in December 2023 to challenge the fee set for the Avanci pool, which licenses roughly 170,000 declared SEPs owned by 65 entities; unlike the SEP owners, Avanci has made no FRAND declaration to ETSI. Applying Unwired Planet v. Huawei, the Court held that joining a licensing platform does not release SEP owners from their FRAND obligations to the standards body, and found Tesla has a real prospect of establishing that a global license to the entire Avanci 5G pool is the only license satisfying InterDigital's ETSI obligations. The Court also held that Tesla properly served InterDigital under the UK Civil Procedure Rules provision for claims relating to a registered right, and, reversing the courts below and endorsing Lord Justice Arnold's dissent, found that the Delaware Court of Chancery would not determine a FRAND rate for a non-UK patent and so was not an available alternative forum.
About Patent Pulse. Each issue is assembled from the complaints, opinions, and dockets themselves
(CourtListener / RECAP) and from published reporting, and is reviewed by a K2K attorney before publication.
Case facts are drawn from the complaints as filed — allegations are allegations, not findings. Nothing
here is legal advice or a characterization of any court’s holding beyond the cited opinion; follow the
source links for the primary materials.