Computer-memory company Netlist has filed a new complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking to block imports of Micron memory chips used in Google, Nvidia, and Broadcom artificial intelligence products, escalating a legal battle over patented server and memory hardware.
The legal friction between Netlist and major semiconductor manufacturers intensified when the memory maker targeted components that feed the booming AI infrastructure sector. In a complaint first filed under confidential seal at the U.S. International Trade Commission, the company alleged that Micron memory chips and the downstream products built by its technology partners infringe two of its patents covering high bandwidth memory technology. The trade tribunal action asks regulators to bar imports of Micron dynamic random access memory devices alongside the graphics processing units and servers produced by its corporate customers.
Targeting AI Giants and High Bandwidth Memory
Netlist’s latest trade tribunal filing moves the dispute well beyond standard computer components and directly into high-end artificial intelligence hardware. The company asserts that Google, Nvidia, and Broadcom incorporate infringing technology within their servers and graphics processors. Representatives for Micron, Google, Nvidia, and Broadcom did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the allegations.
Chief Executive Officer C.K. Hong pointed to the decades the company has spent engineering advanced memory systems now required for modern data centers.
C.K. Hong, Netlist CEO
Hong added in a statement reported across wire services that this action reflects our continued commitment to protecting our foundational technologies from unauthorized use.
Broad Legal Campaign Across the Memory Sector
The new proceeding sits alongside a widening portfolio of regulatory and federal court actions. Netlist filed another complaint at the trade agency in August focusing on memory chips used in products manufactured by Super Micro Computer, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and Lenovo. That separate dispute involves four distinct patents covering DDR5 registered DIMMs and multiplexer registered DIMMs utilized in data centers and high-performance computing.
While Netlist pushes for import restrictions, Micron has secured its own victories. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions invalidating five Netlist patents challenged by Micron. Micron also faces separate litigation involving NAND flash technology with Yangtze Memory Technologies, which has resulted in regional court injunctions in Germany that Micron is currently appealing.
Texas Verdicts and the Samsung Industry Benchmark
These administrative trade battles draw considerable leverage from past courtroom outcomes. In 2024, Netlist secured a $445 million verdict against Micron in federal court in Marshall, Texas. Company executives argue these figures establish clear market valuations for their intellectual property.
That enforcement strategy gained further momentum in August when Netlist settled a separate dispute with Samsung after winning patent verdicts against the Korean technology giant in the same Texas court. Under the terms of that global settlement, Samsung gained portfolio access, agreed to supply DRAM and NAND components, and purchased 10 million Netlist shares.
“The Samsung agreement established an important industry benchmark for the value of our IP,”
C.K. Hong, Netlist CEO
Hong stated while outlining the firm’s ongoing enforcement roadmap.
Procedural Timeline Before the Trade Commission
Formal institution of an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission does not signal an immediate finding of infringement. The agency’s commissioners previously voted to open a Section 337 probe following the initial August filings, noting that the agency has yet to judge the merits of the underlying claims.
The case now moves before the Chief Administrative Law Judge, who will assign a specific judge to manage discovery, hold an evidentiary hearing, and issue an initial determination. Regulators face a strict statutory timeline to lock in a target completion date for the whole inquiry, while any eventual penalties remain subject to a 60-day review window during which the U.S. Trade Representative may override the outcome on policy grounds.