IP Law Daily, PATENT NEWS: DOJ files Statement of Interest in second antitrust suit related to standard-essential patents, (Apr 10, 2026)

By Rebecca Mayo, J.D.

The United States pointed to its earlier Statement of Interest in the Disney case and advised the court to examine the patent holder’s commitments and responsibilities before concluding that the inclusion of a patent in industry standards automatically created market power.

The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division submitted a Statement of Interest in an antitrust case filed by Samsung Electronics against Netlist alleging Netlist used its patent rights to violate the antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act Section 2. The Antitrust Division asserted that it was seeking to ensure that both antitrust and intellectual property laws were applied in a manner that promoted innovation and enhanced consumer welfare. It pointed to a previously filed Statement of Interest in a similar case dealing with standards-development activity and reiterated its argument that simply because a patent has been incorporated into a standard does not necessarily create market power and urged the court to consider any commitments and contractual obligations the patent holder undertook under the standards-development organization’s (SDO’s) policies limiting any potential market power (Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. V. Netlist, Inc., No. 25-cv-01589-JLH (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2026)).

JEDEC. The Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) develops standards for semiconductor memory chips and modules, which enable interoperability, i.e., the ability of memory products made by different manufacturers to work together with computer and electronic devices made by others. Since JEDEC standards are widely implemented, and for many types of semiconductor memory products, it is imperative that those products comply with JEDEC standards in order to be commercially viable. Member companies participate in JEDEC’s standard-setting process, where members contribute to the standards by submitting ideas and voting on technical proposals. Once JEDEC selects a particular technology for the standard, the industry is effectively “locked in” on that technology and standard implementers are limited in their ability to innovate or use alternative technologies.

Once a patented technology is standardized, the owner of a standard-essential patent (SEP), meaning a patent that would necessarily be infringed by the use, sale, offer for sale or other disposition of a portion of a product in order to be compliant with the required portions of a final approved JEDEC standard, may have extraordinary leverage against the manufacturers of standardized products because the patent owner can, unless restrained, demand and obtain royalties for the use of its patent that greatly exceed the value, if any, that the patented technology would command had it not been incorporated into a standard. Therefore, JEDEC adopted certain binding commitments to JEDEC members conduct requiring them to disclose any patents or patent applications potentially covering technology used in draft standards that are under consideration and should JEDEC adopt a standard that includes a JEDEC member’s patented technology, that member is obligated to license those patents to manufacturers of standard compliant products on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.

Samsung’s allegations. In its complaint, Samsung alleged that Netlist used its JEDEC membership to copy ideas presented by other JEDEC members and file patent applications on the technology being considered for adoption by the industry and failed to disclose potential SEPs to JEDEC until the industry had already adopted the technology that Netlist’s patents allegedly covered. Netlist then allegedly exploited its monopoly power by refusing to license its patents without industry members paying exorbitant, supra-RAND royalties for Netlist’s patent portfolio, thereby manipulating the technology and downstream markets and increasing prices. Samsung alleged that through this conduct, Netlist violated and/or attempted to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, breached its contractual obligations owed to Samsung, and engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professional Code § 17200 et seq.

Statement of Interest. While the Antitrust Division took no position on the adequacy of the specific allegations or on the ultimate disposition of Netlist’s motion to dismiss, the agency sought to call the court’s attention to a Statement of Interest that it had recently filed in Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Interdigital, Inc.. In that statement, the Justice Department described how courts should apply antitrust laws to standards-development activity and legal principles regarding establishing market power and exclusionary conduct in that context.

Although Samsung argued that “[w]hen an SEP [standard essential patent] is incorporated into a standard, this confers market power on the SEP owner,” the Justice Department quoted from its Disney filing that “[i]t is axiomatic that ‘a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee.’” The agency claimed that this should be true for SEPs as well, where “[t]here should... be no presumption of market power simply because a patent has been incorporated into a standard, without an assessment of the alternatives to the standard and the contractual obligations and commitments the patent holder has undertaken under the SDO’s patent policy limiting any potential market power.”

The Justice Department next turned to Samsung’s argument that it had adequately alleged exclusionary conduct under Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2007), by alleging that Netlist falsely represented that it would license its SEPs on RAND terms and JEDEC relied on these assurances to produce industry-wide standards. The statement of interest also cited Broadcom and argued that “charging high prices does not by itself constitute exclusionary conduct.” A violation of contractual obligations, including contractual requirements that a patentee negotiates for RAND terms, would not “in and of itself, constitute exclusionary or anticompetitive conduct cognizable under the antitrust laws.”

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01589-JLH.

Judge: Hall, J.

Attorneys: Rodger Dallery Smith, II (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP) for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Emily Dibenedetto (Shaw Keller LLP) for Netlist, Inc.

Companies: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Netlist, Inc.

News: Patent TechnologyInternet DelawareNews