The ruling deconsolidates the member case, No. 2:25-cv-00558, from the lead case Netlist filed against Samsung Electronics. Micron moved out of two Allen offices and into a new facility in Richardson, which sits in the Northern District of Texas, before Netlist filed suit in May 2025.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), patent venue turns on whether a defendant "resides" in the district or "has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business" there. The Federal Circuit in In re Cray requires "(1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant."
Netlist advanced four theories after venue discovery. It argued that Micron's remote and hybrid employees in the district had ratified their homes as company workplaces, pointing to company-paid laptops, phones and internet reimbursement, and contending Micron "created a significant and regular remote work force in the District."
Judge Gilstrap rejected that theory, writing that Netlist "offers no evidence that the Micron Defendants have any property interest in their employees' homes, played a part in selecting their locations, required the employees to store inventory at their homes, condition employment on maintaining a home specifically in this District, or advertising employees' homes as their places of business." He distinguished In re Cordis Corp., where employees stored tens of thousands of dollars of product in their homes.
In a footnote, the judge flagged the tension between Cray and post-pandemic work. "While Cray remains undisturbed, it is challenging to discount such reordering and treat remote work models in the same manner as existed pre-COVID," he wrote, adding that the court "looks for future guidance on this issue."
Netlist's second theory relied on Micron's continuing lease at its Bethany Office in Allen, which remained furnished at the time of filing. Netlist argued "Micron could have just unlocked the door" and resumed operations. The court noted Micron had removed signage and networking hardware, updated the website, and disabled badge readers, and found the office lacked the "regular, physical presence of an employee or other agent of the defendant" required under In re Google LLC.
The third theory — that distributor Avnet's and sales representative Ion Associates' in-district offices served as Micron's places of business — also failed under Cray's third prong. The court found Netlist had not shown Micron possessed, owned, leased or specified the locations of those offices, or that the companies needed Micron's permission to move. Micron's website listed Avnet as an "authorized distributor" and Ion as a "Manufacturer Representative," which the court found insufficient to establish ratification.
On Netlist's fallback argument under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), Gilstrap wrote that § 1400(b) is "the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions" and not supplemented by the general venue statute.
Rather than dismiss, the court transferred the case. "[T]he interests of justice dictate that rather than dismissal, this action should be transferred to the District of Delaware, which is familiar with these parties, their counsel, and their claims," Gilstrap wrote. Micron had argued in its briefing that pending cases in Delaware between it and Netlist over the '087 and '731 patents favored dismissal or, in the alternative, a transfer there.
Avnet's motion to sever and stay, filed at Dkt. No. 99, remains pending and will be considered by the transferee court.