[Edaily Reporter JAEMIN SONG ] As the memory semiconductor market experiences a boom driven by expanding investment in artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, patent disputes are emerging as a new business risk. With sales at memory chipmakers surging, the amount of damages and royalties resulting from patent infringement is also increasing. In particular, there are growing concerns that the situation could spill over into the entire AI server supply chain, as there has been a recent spate of cases demanding not only monetary compensation but also bans on imports and sales in the United States.

According to the semiconductor industry on the 20th, a jury at the U.S. District Court in Texas recently ruled that Japanese NAND flash manufacturer Kioxia must pay $229 million (approximately 340 billion won) in damages for infringing on a patent held by U.S. satellite communications company ViaSat. The damages were calculated based on royalties for past infringements occurring up to March 2026.

The patent in question is reportedly related to technology that reduces power consumption and enhances reliability and lifespan during the high-speed data processing of NAND flash memory. ViaSat claimed that Kioxia used its technology without authorization, while Kioxia has denied the infringement allegations, arguing that the patent is invalid. Kioxia is considering legal action, including an appeal, against this verdict.

Domestic memory manufacturers have also come under the influence of this patent offensive. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recently launched a patent infringement investigation into SamsungElectronics’ DRAM and products incorporating it, following a complaint filed by U.S. semiconductor design firm Netlist. Netlist alleged that SamsungElectronics infringed on its DRAM data processing technology and requested a ban on the import and sale of the relevant products in the United States.

The investigation covers not only SamsungElectronics but also products from major customers that use Samsung’s memory, including Google, NVIDIA, Broadcom, and Supermicro Computer. This means the scope of the patent dispute has expanded beyond memory chips to include finished products such as AI accelerators and servers. However, the ITC’s initiation of an investigation does not imply a finding of patent infringement or import restrictions; actual sanctions require procedures such as a preliminary determination by an administrative law judge and a review by the Commission.

SK hynix is also facing a patent dispute involving High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) and 3D NAND. Monolithic 3D, a U.S.-based non-practicing entity (NPE), claims that SK hynix’s 3D NAND and HBM, as well as memory products containing these chips, infringe on its patents. While chips themselves were the primary targets in the past, the scope of litigation has recently been expanding to encompass the entire product line, including SSDs and memory modules.

In fact, memory-related patent lawsuits are surging. According to an analysis of Docket Navigator data by IAM, a U.S. intellectual property media outlet, DRAM-related patent lawsuits filed in U.S. federal district courts in 2025 increased by 119% compared to the previous year. During the same period, NAND-related lawsuits also rose by 56%. This is believed to be driven by the growing AI memory market, which has raised the potential for higher damages and settlement amounts in the event of a patent infringement ruling.

The industry views the possibility of import and sales bans as a greater risk than the high damages resulting from patent litigation. This is because if import restrictions are implemented, the impact could extend beyond the legal costs and financial burdens on individual semiconductor companies to affect memory supply and demand, as well as the AI server deployment schedules of big tech firms. An industry official stated, “As the memory market grows, the value of patents for core technologies is also rising,” adding, “Since the scope of litigation is expanding to include finished products and customers, a supply-chain-level response is necessary.”