The case, docketed as 2:25-cv-00558, was consolidated with a lead action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Netlist filed its initial complaint on May 19, 2025, and later filed a First Amended Complaint adding Avnet, Inc. as a defendant. Micron moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), patent infringement actions may be brought in a district where the defendant resides or where it has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The court applied the Federal Circuit's standard from *In re Cray Inc.*, which requires (1) a physical place in the district; (2) that it be a regular and established place of business; and (3) that it be the place of the defendant.
Netlist argued that venue was proper because Micron had remote and hybrid employees in the district. The plaintiff pointed to company-paid laptops, equipment, and internet reimbursements provided to workers, including field applications engineer Justin Bennett, who worked from home in the district.
The court rejected this argument, noting that Netlist provided no evidence that Micron had a property interest in the employees' homes, selected their locations, or required them to store inventory there. The court distinguished the case from *In re Cordis Corp.*, where employees stored significant physical products in their homes, noting that Micron employees primarily stored digital files on computers.
Netlist also argued that Micron still possessed its prior office space in Allen, Texas, at the time of filing. The court found this unavailing because Micron had ceased to conduct business at those locations as part of a relocation to a new facility in the Northern District of Texas. This cessation was in place when the suit was filed.
Additionally, Netlist suggested venue could be established through Micron's distributor, Avnet, or sales agent, Ion Associates. The court held that Netlist failed to meet its burden to present facts upon which venue can be established through these channels.
The court dismissed the case, holding that Netlist had not met its burden to present facts upon which venue can be established under the patent venue statute. The court noted that while remote work models have changed since the *Cray* decision, it remains bound by that precedent.