Reported / Citable
Background
Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC filed suit against Micron Technology, Inc. for patent infringement of NAND flash memory modules and DRAM modules on June 30, 2025. AMT alleged that Micron maintains the Micron Storage Solutions Center in Austin, Texas, where engineers lead research in storage software, and that Micron engages in memory device design, development, and customer support in the Western District of Texas. Micron moved to transfer venue to the District of Idaho or Northern District of California, arguing it is headquartered in Boise, Idaho and that the majority of design and development work occurs in Boise and Northern California facilities, not Texas.
AMT responded by filing a motion for leave to conduct venue discovery, seeking to undertake interrogatories, document requests, requests for admission, and depositions to investigate whether Micron’s declarations about employee locations and work responsibilities were incomplete or misleading. AMT argued that the declarations improperly limited their scope and failed to address sales, customer support, and employees working on related technologies in Texas.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted in part and denied in part AMT’s motion for leave to conduct venue discovery. The court found no evidence of fraud or misconduct in Micron’s declarations and was doubtful that additional information would alter the outcome on the transfer motion. However, because AMT presented a “non-frivolous” basis for venue and non-frivolous arguments regarding the location of relevant witnesses and evidence in the district, the court allowed limited discovery.
The court authorized AMT to serve seven interrogatories, ten document requests, and ten requests for admission. Critically, the court declined to permit depositions of Micron’s three individual declarants, finding the burden of four depositions unwarranted. Instead, the court allowed AMT to depose a single Rule 30(b)(6) witness for up to four hours. Venue discovery was ordered to close on April 13, 2026, with AMT’s response to the transfer motion due by April 27, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Courts retain broad discretion in venue discovery but will not authorize it as a “fishing expedition” absent a non-frivolous basis for venue.
- A plaintiff opposing transfer bears the burden of demonstrating necessity for discovery; skepticism about whether discovery will change the outcome does not automatically preclude it.
- Courts may permit targeted discovery tools (interrogatories, document requests, admissions) while restricting more burdensome depositions.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), venue in patent cases requires either that the defendant reside in the district or that the defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the tension between plaintiff’s burden to prove venue and the practical information asymmetry in venue disputes, where the defendant typically possesses detailed knowledge of its own operations. By allowing limited discovery despite skepticism about its utility, the court recognized that even a weak venue showing can warrant some discovery to develop the factual record, though burdensome discovery tools like multiple depositions remain discretionary.
For patent litigants, the decision clarifies that venue discovery is available but narrowly tailored. The ruling also highlights the critical importance of employee location data and work-assignment declarations in venue disputes involving technology companies with multi-state operations, particularly in patent cases where the physical location of design and development work determines proper venue.