Federal Circuit disposition — 25-117

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., MICRON
CONSUMER PRODUCTS, GROUP, LLC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2025-117
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California in No.
3:23-cv-05792-RFL, Judge Rita F. Lin.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Micron Technology Inc. and Micron Consumer Prod-
ucts Group, LLC (collectively, “Micron”) petition for a writ
of mandamus directing the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to reverse its discovery
order requiring Micron to produce in paper format 73 pages
of what it characterizes as highly confidential source code.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. (“YMTC”)
and Yangtze Memory Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “re-
spondents”) oppose. We deny the petition.
Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 02/26/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

IN RE MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. 2
BACKGROUND
YMTC filed this suit alleging Micron’s 3D NAND prod-
ucts infringe YMTC’s patents.1 At the parties’ request, the
magistrate judge entered an agreed-upon protective order
governing discovery. The order gives a limited group of
people (including outside counsel, experts, and court per-
sonnel) access and review of source code. Appx269–70.
Employees and officers of the parties are prohibited.
In addition to allowing for inspection on a secure com-
puter, the order contemplated the ability to request and re-
ceive source code in paper copy format:
At the request of the Receiving Party, and sub-
ject to any export control restrictions, the Pro-
ducing Party shall provide paper copies
(“Original Printouts”) of portions of the materi-
als on the Secure Computer that is requested by
the Receiving Party and is reasonably necessary
to facilitate the Receiving Party’s preparation of
court filings, pleadings, expert reports, or other
papers, or for deposition or trial.2
Several provisions facilitate access and limit risk of dis-
closure of such materials. Section 9(j) limits printing to no
more than “1500 pages—including no more than 30 consec-
utive pages” and allows objections to be raised with the
court. Appx276. Section 9(l) requires the receiving party
to “maintain a record of any individual who has inspected
any portion of the source code” and for any person receiving
a copy to “maintain and store any paper copies of the ma-
terial at their offices in a manner that prevents duplication
of or unauthorized access.” Appx276–77. And section 9(m)
1 Micron asserted patent infringement counter-
claims against respondents.
2 Appx275–76.
Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 02/26/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

IN RE MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. 3
requires paper copies to be destroyed if no longer in use.
Appx277.
Under the terms of the order, respondents requested
paper copies of 73 pages of source code materials related to
Micron’s fabrication processes used to manufacture Mi-
cron’s 3D NAND products and the arrangement of fabri-
cated elements of the products. Appx335. In November
2024, Micron filed its objections at the district court to
providing such printed materials, noting that the material
was considered its “most secure and sensitive Source Code”
and that the threat of theft was “very real,” as evidenced
by a prior theft of its technology by a Taiwanese company.
Id. Micron argued that the request was excessive and not
reasonably necessary for case preparation. Appx336.
On December 12, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered
Micron to provide the requested printouts to YMTC’s out-
side counsel, concluding that the request, within the “pre-
sumptive limits” of the agreed-upon protective order, was
“thoughtful and focused on materials needed for case prep-
aration.” Appx3. While recognizing the importance of the
source code to Micron, the magistrate judge determined
that the “strong protections” in the protective order were
sufficient to safeguard against any risk of unauthorized
disclosure. Id. Micron then moved the district judge for
relief, arguing, among other things, the magistrate judge’s
order raised national security and foreign policy concerns
given that YMTC is a Chinese state-owned company that
the government has placed on a restricted export list.
Appx363, 367. On January 14, 2025, the district court de-
nied Micron’s motion. This petition followed.
DISCUSSION
Although a writ of mandamus may be used to protect
confidential and sensitive information, see In re United
States, 669 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the remedy is
available only in “exceptional circumstances amounting to
a judicial usurpation of power . . . or a clear abuse of
Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 02/26/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

IN RE MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. 4
discretion,” see Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S.
367, 380 (2004) (cleaned up). The petitioner seeking the
writ must generally show a clear and indisputable right to
issuance of the writ, that it has no other adequate method
of attaining the desired relief, and that “the writ is appro-
priate under the circumstances.” Id. at 380–81. Micron
has not satisfied that standard.
The district court reasonably determined respondents’
discovery request was not excessive or unreasonable and
that the protective order is sufficient to prevent against du-
plication or unauthorized access. The request was for not
more than 11 consecutive pages, well below the limit of 30
consecutive pages the parties agreed in the protective order
YMTC could request, and was for a total of 73 pages, a
small fraction of the limit of 1500 printed pages contem-
plated by that same order. Appx2–3.
Micron argues the district court failed to weigh the se-
curity concerns it raised to such access. We disagree. The
record indicates both the magistrate judge and the district
court judge considered the nature of the source code in
question and potential risks. The magistrate judge’s order,
which the district judge described as well-reasoned, refers
to Micron’s own characterizations of the value of the infor-
mation, and both judges gave plausible reasons for finding
the threat of disclosure minimal. See, e.g., Appx3 (noting
“the strong protections in the protective order that will ap-
ply to the print outs”); Appx375 (“Moreover, the protective
order includes sufficient procedures to prevent duplication
or unauthorized access to the material.”).
Consistent with the protective order, the district
court’s discovery order requires protection of the printed
source code material to outside counsel, not to YMTC itself.
The protective order prohibits YMTC from viewing the ma-
terial. Micron’s suspicion that counsel will fail to comply
with the order and will instead allow the printouts to fall
into the hands of its client is unsupported by anything
Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 02/26/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

IN RE MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. 5
other than speculation. In effect, Micron is arguing the dis-
trict court should have given more weight to the security
and foreign policy risks that its source code could “fall[] into
the wrong hands” through unauthorized disclosure to
YMTC. Pet. at 35. However, we are not prepared to dis-
turb the trial court’s balancing of the interests on limited
mandamus review based merely on Micron’s conjecture
that an individual might violate the protective order and
subject themselves to appropriate sanctions.3
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
February 26, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
3 Given YMTC’s assertion that “Micron’s petition
does not show or even say that the source code at issue here
is subject to the” Export Administration Regulations,
YMTC Resp. at 18 n.4, we trust that, if YMTC comes to
take the view that it is not so subject and plans to act on
that view, it will provide appropriate notice to Micron in
time to permit Micron to raise the issue to the district court
before YMTC acts on that view.
Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 5 Filed: 02/26/2025

-- 5 of 5 --