DOJ Files SEP Antitrust Brief in Samsung-Netlist Case, Reiterates That Standard Adoption Does Not Confer Market Power

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest (SOI) on April 7, 2026 in the ongoing patent infringement litigation between memory systems developer Netlist Inc. and consumer electronics giant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. According to IPWatchdog, which reported on the filing on April 8, the DOJ’s brief addresses Samsung’s antitrust counterclaims and reiterates the Department’s consistent position that “inclusion in a technical standard does not create a presumption that patent rights create market power.” The DOJ asked the court to evaluate Samsung’s antitrust claims in accordance with this principle.

The litigation centers on patents held by Netlist related to DRAM and NAND flash memory systems, including technologies associated with LRDIMM (Load-Reduced Dual In-line Memory Module) and High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) interfaces standardized through JEDEC (the semiconductor industry standards body). Netlist has pursued patent enforcement actions against major memory manufacturers since 2021. Samsung responded with counterclaims alleging that Netlist’s JEDEC-essential patents are subject to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing obligations, and that Netlist’s refusal to license on such terms constitutes a violation of U.S. antitrust law.

The DOJ’s filing is not the first time the Department has intervened in SEP-related litigation. The agency has previously submitted statements of interest in cases including Ericsson v. D-Link (5th Circuit, 2014) and Nokia v. Continental, each time reinforcing the position that market power does not automatically arise from the technical fact of standard adoption. The SEP holder’s ability to exclude competitors from practicing a standard — the so-called “hold-up” risk — is a contested theory in antitrust law, and the DOJ has consistently resisted the notion that this alone establishes the market power element required for an antitrust violation.

The SEP-antitrust nexus has grown increasingly complex as technical standards for 5G, WiFi 6/7, Bluetooth, and USB govern ever-broader swaths of the technology industry. When a patent is declared essential to a standard, implementers cannot avoid practicing it, which critics argue gives SEP holders structural leverage over the market. Antitrust claimants use this argument to assert market power. The DOJ’s intervention in Netlist v. Samsung reinforces a doctrinal guardrail: the court should require evidence of actual market power derived from factors beyond standardization before sustaining an antitrust theory.

This filing arrives amid heightened global policy activity around SEP licensing. The European Commission’s proposed SEP Regulation — which would introduce mandatory essentiality checks and aggregate royalty determinations — remains under debate in Europe. China’s CNIPA has issued successive guidelines on standardization and IP. In the United States, the USPTO and NIST have updated joint guidance on SEP licensing and enforcement. Against this backdrop, the DOJ’s decision to submit an SOI in Netlist v. Samsung reflects the agency’s continued interest in shaping how courts apply antitrust doctrine to standard-essential patent disputes.

For IP practitioners and licensing professionals, the DOJ’s position carries practical weight: it reinforces the legal landscape in which antitrust counterclaims in SEP cases must meet a high threshold to survive — particularly the market power element. While the ultimate outcome of Netlist v. Samsung will depend on the court’s merits analysis, the DOJ’s brief adds authoritative weight to the principle that SEP status and market dominance are legally distinct questions.