US Opens Patent Case That Could Bar DDR5 Server Memory Imports

United States International Trade Commission initiated a Section 337 investigation into certain dynamic random access memory devices, products containing the same, and components thereof following a complaint filed on August 11, 2026.

The U.S. International Trade Commission voted on Sept. 22, 2026, to open a patent investigation into imported DDR5 memory modules and the servers, computers and storage systems that contain them, a case that could end in a ban on those imports¹.

The case, Investigation No. 337-TA-1523, follows a complaint filed on Aug. 11, 2026, by Netlist, Inc. of Irvine, California². The Commission published its notice of institution in the Federal Register on Sept. 25, 2026¹.

In short, a California company says that some imported server memory copies its patented designs. If the Commission agrees, U.S. customs could stop shipments of these memory modules, and of servers built with them, from the named companies at the border.

What is the Netlist complaint about?

Netlist filed its complaint under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a U.S. law against unfair practices in import trade¹. A supplement to the complaint followed on Aug. 25, 2026². The complaint says the goods break U.S. patent law when they are imported, sold for import, or sold in the United States after import¹.

Under section 337, infringing a U.S. patent in import trade is an unlawful practice in itself³. Infringing means making, using or selling something that a patent protects without the owner’s permission. In patent cases, the complaining company does not need to show that the imports injured it³.

Netlist also says that an industry in the United States exists, or is being set up, for the patented products¹. This is a legal condition of every section 337 patent case. Netlist asks the Commission to issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders¹.

Which memory products does the DRAM case cover?

The investigation covers "certain DRAM devices (specifically, DDR5 generation DIMM), and products containing the same (such as servers, computing systems, and storage systems), and components thereof"¹. In plain words, these are DDR5 memory modules, the plug-in memory cards used in computers and servers. DRAM stands for dynamic random access memory, the working memory of a computer.

The case also reaches the larger machines that hold these modules. The notice names servers, computing systems and storage systems as examples¹. Parts of these products are included as well. The Commission’s rules say this plain description in the notice defines the scope of the investigation⁴.

Netlist relies on four U.S. patents¹. The notice lists the patent claims, which are the numbered statements of what each patent protects:

• U.S. Patent No. 10,025,731: claims 1-13 and 16-18, or 16 claims¹.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,217,523: claims 1-15, 17 and 18, or 17 claims¹.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366: claims 1-14 and 16-28, or 27 claims¹.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,675,407: claims 1-20, or 20 claims¹.

That makes 80 patent claims in the case. The Commission will decide whether the imports infringe one or more of them¹.

Which companies does the Netlist case name?

The Commission named six companies as respondents, the companies accused of breaking section 337². They are:

• Micron Technology, Inc., of Boise, Idaho.
• Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., of Boise, Idaho.
• Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., of Spring, Texas.
• Lenovo Group Ltd., of Hong Kong.
• Lenovo (United States) Inc., of Morrisville, North Carolina.
• Super Micro Computer, Inc., of San Jose, California.

Netlist is the complainant, the company that brought the case¹. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, a unit of the Commission, is also a party¹. Its lawyer acts as an independent party who represents the public interest³.

Buyers of servers and storage systems from these brands may be affected. A limited exclusion order covers products of named companies⁵. Here that could include servers that contain the accused memory.

What could happen to DDR5 shipments at the border?

The Commission has not yet decided anything on the merits of the case². Opening the investigation does not stop any goods today. Shipments of DDR5 memory and servers continue to enter the United States while the case runs.

If the Commission finds a violation, it can use two tools³:

• An exclusion order, which tells customs to stop the products at the border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the border agency, enforces these orders³.
• A cease and desist order, which tells the companies to stop certain actions³.

Netlist asks for a limited exclusion order, not a general one¹. The Commission’s rules allow a general exclusion order, which blocks the goods from every source, only in two cases⁵. One is to stop companies from getting around a limited order. The other is a pattern of violations where the source of infringing goods is hard to identify⁵.

If it issues an order, the Commission also sets a bond, an amount of money the respondent must post⁵. The rules say the bond must be large enough to protect the complainant from any injury⁵.

Why will the judge study the US industry and public interest?

The Commission ordered the judge in this case to take evidence on the public interest¹. This means the effect that a ban would have on public health and welfare, competition in the U.S. economy, U.S. production of similar goods, and U.S. consumers⁵. The judge must give the Commission findings and a recommendation on these points¹.

Under the rules, a judge does not normally take evidence on the public interest unless the Commission orders it⁵. Here the Commission did so in the notice. Before acting, the Commission can also ask the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, customs and other agencies for advice⁵.

The Commission also asked for a full record on the U.S. industry¹. The judge may look at how far Netlist’s claims rely on spending by other companies. The judge may also look at how much of the spending linked to the U.S. products takes place outside the United States¹.

How does the section 337 case move forward?

The Commission’s news release and its rules set out the path of the case². The main steps are:

1. The Chief Administrative Law Judge names the judge who will run the case¹.
2. Within 45 days after institution, the Commission sets a target date for finishing the investigation².
3. The judge holds a formal hearing, where the parties present evidence².
4. The judge issues an initial determination on whether section 337 was broken².
5. The Commission may review that decision and adopt, change or reverse it³.
6. The Commission makes a final determination and decides on any orders².

If the Commission does not review the judge’s decision, that decision becomes the Commission’s final decision³. Appeals of Commission orders go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit³.

The judge usually issues a protective order soon after the case starts³. It controls how the companies’ confidential business data is handled.

What must the six DRAM respondents file?

The six named companies must answer the complaint and the notice. The Commission will consider their answers if they arrive within 20 days after service, the date the Commission sends them the complaint and notice¹. The Commission will extend this deadline only for good cause¹.

Each answer must be made under oath and respond to every claim in the complaint⁶. Each answer must include, where available, data on the quantity and value of imports of the accused goods⁶. Respondents that are importers must also give the Harmonized Tariff Schedule numbers for their imports⁶. These are the customs codes used to classify goods at the U.S. border.

Respondents that do not make the accused goods themselves must name and give the address of their suppliers⁶. If possible, each respondent must also send a sample of the accused product with its answer⁶.

A company that does not answer in time risks losing the case. The Commission may then accept Netlist’s claims as true and issue an exclusion order, a cease and desist order, or both¹.

When could a DDR5 import ban take effect?

No ban date is set yet. The investigation itself began with the Commission’s order of Sept. 22, 2026, and the notice was issued on Sept. 23, 2026¹. The Commission will set its target date for the end of the case within 45 days of institution².

The Commission says it will make a final decision "at the earliest practicable time"². Any order it then issues takes effect when issued. It becomes final 60 days after issuance, unless the U.S. Trade Representative disapproves it for policy reasons during that period². The President gave the Trade Representative this power to veto exclusion orders in 2005³.

For importers and buyers of DDR5 servers, nothing changes at the border until the Commission issues an order. After that, the 60-day review period follows.

Key points on the DDR5 memory investigation

The table sums up the main facts of the case.

The next step is the Commission’s target date for finishing the case, due within 45 days of institution. Until the Commission issues an order, DDR5 memory modules and the servers that contain them can still enter the United States.

Sources

1. ↩ Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (III); Notice of Institution of Investigation https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/25/2026-19697/certain-dynamic-random-access-memory-dram-devices-products-containing-the-same-and-components
2. ↩ USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (III) https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0923_69264.htm
3. ↩ 337 Investigations Frequently Asked Questions https://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/documents/337_faqs.pdf
4. ↩ eCFR :: 19 CFR 210.10 — Institution of investigation. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-210/subpart-B/section-210.10
5. ↩ eCFR :: 19 CFR 210.50 — Commission action, the public interest, and bonding by respondents. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-210/subpart-G/section-210.50
6. ↩ eCFR :: 19 CFR 210.13 — The response. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-210/subpart-C/section-210.13