IP Law Daily, PATENT NEWS—USPTO and DOJ support exclusion order in ITC DRAM probe involving Netlist’s memory patents, (Dec 3, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Exclusion orders for infringing imports advance—not undermine—the public interest, the agencies contend.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly submitted a public-interest statement before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in In the Matter of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof. The agencies contend that valid patent rights serve the public interest and merit strong enforcement through exclusion orders under Section 337. Rejecting threshold-based public interest objections, they urged the Commission to dismiss speculative harms raised by respondents and emphasized that only rare, evidence-based circumstances should warrant withholding the statutory remedy of exclusion (In the Matter of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-3854 (USITC)).

Background. Netlist, Inc., an Irvine-based memory technology company, filed a complaint with the ITC under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, targeting the unauthorized importation and sale of DRAM and high-bandwidth memory (HBM) products that allegedly infringe six of its patents. The respondents named in the complaint are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., along with its U.S. affiliates Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., as well as Google LLC and Super Micro Computer, Inc. The complaint, filed on September 29, 2025, alleges direct and indirect infringement, citing continuing violations even after adverse federal judgments and confirmed patent validity through inter partes review.

Netlist is seeking a limited exclusion order barring the importation of infringing DRAM and HBM products into the U.S. and permanent cease-and-desist orders to stop domestic sales. It further requests the imposition of a bond during the 60-day Presidential review period, citing ongoing injury to its domestic industry, which includes its own manufacturing activity and a licensing relationship with SK hynix Inc. The accused products include Samsung’s DDR5 RDIMMs, MRDIMMs, SODIMMs, UDIMMs, and HBM3/3E memory, as well as servers and cloud-based systems from Google and Super Micro that incorporate these components.

Netlist asserted its U.S. Patent Nos. 12,373,366 (the ’366 patent), 10,025,731 (the ’731 patent), 10,268,608 (the ’608 patent), 10,217,523 (the ’523 patent), 9,824,035 (the ’035 patent), and 12,308,087 (the ’087 patent). The ’366 and ’731 patents relate to DDR5 DIMMs with on-module power management and signal correction features that enable high-speed, energy-efficient memory operation. The ’608, ’523, and ’035 patents address data buffering through distributed isolation devices and modular control paths, facilitating increased memory density and improved timing performance in server-class modules. The ’087 patent discloses stacked memory die configurations with reduced driver load and through-silicon-via (TSV) interconnects to optimize bandwidth in high-performance memory packages.

Complaint. According to the complaint, the respondents have engaged in a pattern of infringing conduct that includes the manufacture, importation, and sale of memory devices and integrated systems. Netlist asserts that Samsung’s conduct is particularly egregious, having continued unabated after termination of a prior license agreement and multiple infringement verdicts. Google and Super Micro are accused of using the infringing memory in cloud computing infrastructure and AI-optimized servers, respectively. The complaint includes detailed infringement charts and documentary support for each accused product and reiterates that none of the respondents holds a license to the asserted patents.

Contentions of the agencies. In the joint filing, the USPTO and the DOJ asserted that the public interest is best served by enforcing valid patent rights, particularly through exclusion orders. The statement was signed by representatives of both agencies, including USPTO Director John Squires and Assistant Attorney General Gail Salter. The agencies stated that the patent system exists to encourage costly and risky innovation and that the integrity of this framework depends on predictable and effective remedies.

The agencies began by reaffirming that patents are constitutional property rights central to the American innovation economy. Citing historical sources such as The Federalist No. 43 and the writings of James Madison, they argued that patent enforcement and public interest are not opposing considerations but instead reinforce each other. They pointed to the fact that intellectual property-intensive sectors contribute nearly 40% of U.S. GDP and that weakening patent enforcement at the border undermines the economic incentives on which this contribution depends.

Further, the submission emphasized that Congress created a presumption in favor of exclusion orders upon a finding of violation. Section 337(d)(1) provides that the Commission "shall" issue an exclusion order unless doing so would harm public health or welfare, competitive conditions, or domestic supply. The agencies warned that attempts to flip the statutory framework—by treating public interest as a preliminary obstacle rather than a post-violation balancing factor—would improperly shift the burden to patent holders and undermine legislative intent.

Additionally, the agencies rejected arguments that the importance of the respondents’ products or business operations can justify withholding relief. They cautioned the Commission against accepting private commercial concerns repackaged as public interest claims, noting that such arguments are often made without concrete evidence and threaten to create categorical exemptions that would shield large corporations from accountability under the patent laws.

Thereafter, the DOJ and USPTO stressed that public interest analysis should occur only after the ITC determines that valid patent rights have been infringed. Treating the public interest as a pre-adjudicatory screening device, they warned, would contravene Section 337's structure and could improperly limit complainants' First Amendment right to petition the government for redress. They also argued that the Commission's procedural authority to delegate public-interest fact-finding should not evolve into a de facto bar to otherwise meritorious complaints.

In concluding their submission, the agencies asserted that exceptions to exclusion orders must remain narrow and be based on verifiable evidence. They highlighted the Commission's historical practice of denying relief only in rare cases involving urgent public health needs. Allowing speculative claims to override patent enforcement would not only distort Section 337 but also embolden infringement by reducing the cost of violating patent rights.

The Case is No. 337-TA-3854.

Companies: Netlist, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Google LLC; Super Micro Computer, Inc.

News: Patent TechnologyInternet GCNNews