In re: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., MICRON… v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1361 Fed. Cir. 2016 . In particular, the magistrate…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 C URIAM.
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 01/12/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: MICRON TECHNOLOGY , INC. 2
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: 2 Filed: 01/12/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: MICRON TECHNOLOGY , INC. 3
has shown entitlement to the extraordinary relief of man-
damus.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
The petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion to
stay are denied.
January 12, 2024
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 24-107 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2024

-- 3 of 3 --