Case: 24-107 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC, Petitioners ______________________

2024-107 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:22- cv-00203-JRG-RSP, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. ______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Prod- ucts, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (collectively, “Micron”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to stay this patent infringement action pending final resolution of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings in- volving the asserted patent claims. Micron also moves to stay the upcoming trial pending this court’s consideration Case: 24-107 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2024

2 IN RE: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.

of the petition. Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) opposes. We deny the petition and the motion. Netlist brought this suit in June 2022, seeking relief based on Micron’s alleged infringement of the asserted pa- tent claims. In May 2023, Micron moved to stay the litiga- tion pending resolution of instituted IPR proceedings. On January 3, 2024—with less than three weeks before trial was set to begin—the magistrate judge finally issued a re- port and recommendation denying the motion based on the familiar factors relevant to a stay. 1 See Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, the magistrate judge gave significant weight to Netlist and Micron being direct competitors in the market- place and that a lengthy stay of the type requested by Mi- cron would unduly prejudice Netlist. Micron now petitions us to direct the district court to grant its motion. Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). The pe- titioner must: (1) show that it has a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) show it does not have any other adequate method of obtaining relief; and (3) convince the court that the “writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (cita- tion omitted). We are troubled by the district court’s delay in resolv- ing Micron’s stay motion. At the same time, we are con- fronting a situation in which Micron, the party seeking a stay, petitioned for this court’s intervention only less than three weeks before trial is set to begin. Under the circum- stances presented by this case, we cannot say that Micron

1 Although the magistrate judge has issued a report and recommendation, the district court judge has yet to re- solve the May 2023 stay motion. Case: 24-107 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2024

IN RE: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3

has shown entitlement to the extraordinary relief of man- damus. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion to stay are denied. FOR THE COURT

January 12, 2024 Date