The legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed by California-based Netlist, a maker of high-performance memory modules, accusing Micron of infringing on multiple patents related to memory module technologies used in data centers and high-performance computing systems. In August 2023, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas found Micron liable for infringing Netlist’s patented technology and awarded Netlist $445 million in damages.
Micron subsequently filed post-trial motions to have the verdict set aside or request a new trial. One of the more unusual arguments it presented was that remarks made by President Biden during the trial could have prejudiced the jury. While the President was not commenting directly on the case, Micron argued that his speech, which praised American semiconductor manufacturing and alluded to protecting domestic chipmakers, may have led jurors to sympathize with Netlist — a U.S.-based company — over Micron.
Court Rejects Argument
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, however, ruled that Micron had failed to present compelling evidence that Biden’s remarks had any actual impact on the jury’s decision. In his opinion, the judge noted that political commentary, even if tangentially related to the subject matter of a trial, does not automatically create jury bias or undermine the fairness of the trial unless it is shown to have a direct effect on juror behavior — something Micron could not demonstrate.
Gilstrap emphasized that jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions and evaluate cases based solely on the evidence and arguments presented in court. The decision effectively means that the jury’s award of $445 million to Netlist will stand unless Micron pursues and succeeds with an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Implications for IP Litigation
The ruling has important implications for intellectual property litigation, particularly in high-profile cases where external political, economic, or media factors might be seen as influencing courtroom outcomes. The court’s position reinforces the high bar required to demonstrate jury bias or misconduct in post-trial motions, especially in jurisdictions like the Eastern District of Texas, which are known for being patent-friendly.
