On July 15, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) formally launched an investigation into Netlist’s allegations that Samsung, Google, Supermicro, NVIDIA, and Broadcom infringed on two of its computer memory patents. The investigation stems from a complaint filed by Netlist under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits the importation of products that infringe on intellectual property rights. Netlist alleges that the respondents’ DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory) products were imported in violation of this provision.
Samsung, Google, Supermicro, and NVIDIA all filed objections with the ITC prior to the initiation of the investigation. In a statement, Google emphasized that its accused products are core hardware for U.S. data centers, noting that “hundreds of AI service providers rely on these components to build their services”; Samsung, meanwhile, warned that excluding its memory products would “create a vacuum in critical AI demand, deal a severe blow to the U.S. economy, and hinder AI progress,” while accusing Netlist of “attempting to exploit the potential economic pain caused by a ban to extort exorbitant licensing fees.” Netlist CEO C.K. Hong welcomed the ITC’s decision to open the case, stating that “the company will resolutely defend its intellectual property rights,” and expressed satisfaction with the launch of this second investigation.
This ITC investigation is a continuation of the long-standing patent battle between Netlist and Samsung. Previously, in November 2024, Netlist secured a jury verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ordering Samsung to pay $118 million (approximately 799 million yuan) in damages. Last September, Netlist filed an ITC investigation petition regarding six other patents against Samsung, Google, and others, seeking to ban the import of Samsung’s dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) as well as products from Google and Supermicro that incorporate this technology; that investigation remains ongoing.
Preliminary proceedings in this case have just begun, and IP Finance will continue to monitor further developments.
Case Background
In November 2015, Netlist and Samsung signed a Joint Development and Licensing Agreement (JDLA) aimed at collaborating on the development of a standard interface for memory modules;
In July 2020, Netlist formally terminated the agreement on the grounds that Samsung had failed to fulfill its obligation to supply products at competitive prices;
In October 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a summary judgment finding that Samsung had committed a material breach of contract and that Netlist was entitled to terminate the JDLA;
In late 2021, Netlist filed a lawsuit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of five of its memory patents;
In August 2022, Netlist filed another lawsuit against Samsung in the same court, involving three additional patents;
In April 2023, a federal jury in Texas found Samsung guilty of willful infringement in the first lawsuit and awarded $303 million in damages;
In April 2024, the PTAB declared all five patents involved in the first lawsuit invalid, exempting Samsung from paying the damages;
In November 2024, a federal jury in Texas again found Samsung guilty of willful infringement in the second lawsuit, upheld the validity of all three patents, and awarded Netlist $118 million in damages;
On September 30, 2025, Netlist filed its first Section 337 complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that Samsung, Google, and Supermicro had infringed six of its patents;
On December 30, 2025, the ITC voted to initiate the first investigation;
On June 16, 2026, Netlist filed another 337 complaint with the ITC involving two new patents and added Google, NVIDIA, Broadcom, and Supermicro as additional respondents;
On July 15, 2026, the ITC formally initiated the second investigation to review alleged infringement involving the accused DRAM products.
