Netlist CEO on Patent Fights: ‘This Is How the Big Guys Operate’

Netlist Inc. CEO Chun “Chuck” Hong says his 25-year-old semiconductor firm will continue to press the attack in patent litigation after a string of nine-figure victories against cash-rich behemoths of the industry.

In the last three years, it’s won more than $420 million in verdicts against Samsung Electronics Co and a $445 million verdict against Micron Technology Inc.

The California-based company filed at least six additional patent suits in 2025 along with a complaint at the US International Trade Commission against Samsung, Google LLC, and Super Micro Computer Inc. Those companies have fought back with at least five actions seeking declarations of noninfringement this year, and Micron accused Netlist of filing its suits in bad faith.

Hong talked with Bloomberg Law about Netlist’s use of patent litigation and optimism for policy changes under the second administration of President Donald Trump. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What’s the value in being first to the US Patent and Trademark Office with an invention, versus being first to market with the product?

It may be you that have all the resources to take it take it to market first or maybe somebody else. But getting to that first patent application and getting your patent granted that’s critical, as well, because if that technology gets adopted in a big way you become the owner of IP.

What made Netlist turn to patent litigation?

It just started back in 2009. We have had a five-year relationship that the product that we designed for Dell. Google wanted it because they were also using a lot of memory.

And then overnight they took that design, it’s our proprietary design.

They wanted to cut us out.

And so at that point, we sent them a letter to say, “Hey, this is what’s going on. We’ve been a good supplier and now declare that you’re using our technology with the contract manufacturer, that’s not right, and let’s talk.”

So instead of talking, they sued us. So this is how the big guys operate.

What is the hope when you decide to sue for patent infringement?

At the end of the day, we are looking to get compensated for the use of our patents in Samsung products.

They’re shipping tens of billions of dollars of the product into the US annually that read on our patents.

These are bad actors, to a certain extent.

Are there things with the patent system that you think should be changed?

In the first Trump term, there was a lot of reform to try to balance the field a little bit. And then under Biden, Kathy Vidal just took it to an extreme, making it very hostile for patent owners.

Now with the new director of PTO John Squires, they are actually pushing it very hard to the extreme. They’re basically gutting a lot of the PTAB—the organization itself and its practices and its usefulness. There were talks about getting rid of the PTAB.

So reforming the PTAB is critical, but I think the director is doing a lot of that.

What is some advice you would give other patent owners or startup founders?

I think for patent owners, the patent system is very important for our innovative ecosystem and the competitive advantage this country holds over really all the other countries in the world, whether it is in military or in finance or within computing or biotech.

A lot of it is because of the ecosystem of which patents are very important. Because a patent allows you to come up with an idea and then have the government review it. And then what you’re doing is OK, the government says, ‘OK, this is a real invention that hadn’t been invented before.

So you want to incentivize a small innovator with no money to come up with these ideas.

But the problem is that you make it public, big guys take it, use it, and you as a small entity you only have the judicial process. They’ll never pay voluntarily.

How does a small inventor afford these $2,000 an hour lawyers? It’s hard. You go to federal courts, it takes you $10 million per case.

The system is designed for people to come up with an invention for others to use, but there is no mechanics of how that investor gets compensated. Only the judicial system can force that.