by Dennis Crouch
Micron Technology has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to reverse a discovery order requiring the company to produce 73 pages of its most sensitive source code in paper form to Chinese state-owned semiconductor manufacturer Yangtze Memory Technologies Company (YMTC). The case, In re Micron Technology Inc., presents significant questions about the enforcement of protective order terms and the consideration of national security concerns in patent litigation discovery. The dispute centers on YMTC’s request for printed copies of source code from Micron’s “150 Series Traveler Presentation,” which apparently describes the company’s most technologically advanced 3D NAND semiconductor products and contains code that fewer than a dozen of Micron’s 50,000+ employees have access to. Micron is seeking to turn this into a national security and competitiveness issue based upon the fact that YMTC was only founded in 2016 but has already become the global leader in 3D NAND flash based upon strong support from the Chinese government. The company is also listed in the “Entity List.”
Protective Order Framework and Burden of Proof
The parties’ agreed-upon protective order established a framework for handling sensitive source code materials. While the order permitted inspection of source code on secure computers without internet access, it imposed additional requirements for paper copies. Specifically, any party requesting printed source code materials had to demonstrate that such copies were “reasonably necessary to facilitate the Receiving Party’s preparation of court filings, pleadings, expert reports, or other papers, or for deposition or trial” and were not “excessive.”
Crucially, the protective order placed the burden of persuasion on the requesting party to overcome any objections—a point that becomes central to the legal dispute. The order also established quantitative limits: no more than 1,500 total pages and no more than 30 consecutive pages in any single request.
Micron argues the district court committed clear error by failing to hold YMTC to this burden of proof. According to the petition, YMTC offered only the vague justification that printed copies were needed so the source code “can be cited in pleadings, expert reports, etc.,” without identifying any specific pleadings or explaining why such an extensive production was necessary when expert reports were not due for nearly a year. YMTC’s response to the mandamus petition frames this as a routine discovery dispute that falls well within established precedent and the district court’s discretion.
YMTC makes several key arguments that complicate Micron’s narrative. First, they emphasize that the source code is being produced to US-based litigation counsel, not to YMTC itself. The protective order explicitly prohibits any YMTC employees from accessing the source code materials.
The “Entity List”: Export Controls and Discovery Rules
The national security dimensions of this case stem from YMTC’s placement on the Department of Commerce’s Entity List in 2022. This designation means the US government determined, “based on specific and articulable facts,” that YMTC poses “a significant risk of becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.” 87 Fed. Reg. 77,505 (Dec. 19, 2022); 15 C.F.R. § 744.11(b).
Entity List placement typically requires US companies to obtain licenses before exporting technology to listed entities. However, YMTC argues this framework doesn’t apply to the discovery at issue – especially because it is being produced to US-based litigation counsel pursuant to court order and protective order. The protective order particularly requires counsel maintain source code materials in locked facilities, create detailed access logs, limit electronic transmission to encrypted channels, and destroy materials when no longer needed for litigation purposes.
But Micron counters that the Entity List designation requires heightened scrutiny beyond typical protective order provisions. The company points to the government’s guidance that parties should exercise “extra due diligence” when dealing with Entity List companies and their “affiliates”—a category that arguably includes outside litigation counsel.
Taking a step back: This case began when YMTC sued Micron for patent infringement back in November 2023. Micron responded with counterclaims alleging that YMTC’s rapid technological advancement came through improper means: systematically recruiting Micron engineers and then filing patents in YMTC’s name based on ideas those engineers had developed while working at Micron. This engineer recruitment pattern, Micron argued, constituted trade secret misappropriation that enabled YMTC’s quick rise to market leadership. When the discovery dispute arose over YMTC’s request for 73 pages of printed source code from Micron’s most advanced “150 Series” products, the magistrate judge granted YMTC’s request, reasoning that it fell within the protective order’s 1,500-page limit, represented a “thoughtful and focused” request targeting relevant materials, and that the protective order’s “strong protections” were sufficient to prevent unauthorized disclosure. The district court affirmed this ruling, concluding that “the protective order includes sufficient procedures to prevent duplication or unauthorized access to the material.”
After losing that discovery dispute, Micron immediately petitioned the Federal Circuit for writ of mandamus. But, the appellate court denied that petition, holding that it was “not prepared to disturb the trial court’s balancing of the interests on limited mandamus review based merely on Micron’s conjecture that an individual might violate the protective order and subject themselves to appropriate sanctions.” This language suggests the Federal Circuit viewed Micron’s concerns as speculative rather than demonstrating the clear and immediate harm typically required for mandamus relief.
The new petition to SCOTUS presents Micron’s attempt to meet the demanding three-part test for mandamus relief established in Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010). Under this framework, Micron must demonstrate that it has no other adequate means to obtain relief, that its right to relief is clear and indisputable, and that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Micron’s strongest argument centers on the irreversible nature of the harm—once sensitive source code is produced in paper form to opposing counsel, “the cat is out of the bag” and the disclosure cannot be undone even if Micron ultimately prevails on appeal. Micron also argues that the district court committed clear legal error by failing to enforce the burden-shifting provisions that both parties had agreed to in their protective order, essentially rewriting the discovery rules mid-litigation.
Micron’s petition strategically frames the case as presenting issues of national importance that extend far beyond this particular dispute. The company argues that the intersection of civil discovery rules with national security considerations creates novel legal questions that warrant Supreme Court attention, particularly given the increasing frequency of patent litigation involving foreign state-owned entities and sensitive technologies. Discovery disputes rarely reach the Supreme Court, and Micron faces significant obstacles here in convincing the Court to grant the “extraordinary relief.”
YMTC also argued before the Federal Circuit that Micron forfeited its Entity List and national security arguments by failing to raise them before the magistrate judge initially. According to YMTC’s brief, “the terms ‘national security’ and ‘Entity List’ are not even mentioned in Micron’s original briefing” to the magistrate judge.