Patent Cases

The PTAB held that all 29 claims of Netlist’s ’623 memory‑module patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in a decision favoring Samsung’s SK Hynix petitioners.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

Court decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Netlist’s memory‑module patents, keeping the institution rulings in place.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Netlist’s 11,880,319 patent covering memory‑module signaling. The petition relies on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim references, and cites prior IPR estoppel. The Board has yet to rule.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00056

Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Ellodi's 11,260,061 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets. The petition relies on Perrett, Dohil2009, and Venkatesh as prior art to argue obviousness under §103.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00055

Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 42 claims of Ellodi's ’407 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother, Venkatesh and FDA guidance.

Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00086

Fortinet has filed a petition for inter partes review of Croga Innovations' U.S. Patent 10,601,780, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art firewalls and virtualization systems. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the IPR.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00052

Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 10,632,069 covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00063

Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Woodbury Wireless’s ’895 patent covering MIMO Wi‑Fi systems, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Lastinger publication and Sadowsky patent.

Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00054

Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Ellodi's 11,246,828 patent covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of the ’887 patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile‑device virtualization and remote desktop technologies.

Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00086

Fortinet's attempt to invalidate Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent on network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Fortinet failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically Delco and Adams. This denial maintains the validity of key virtualization and firewall technology for Croga.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

Amazon's IPR petition against B.S.D. Crown, Ltd. was denied after the Board maintained its finding that Petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The denial hinged on the Board adopting a conjunctive construction for key claim terms and finding no prior art disclosed all necessary components.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

Amazon's request for Director Review regarding the institution denial of patent 8934887 was denied. Although the Board misapprehended one figure, the Panel upheld the conjunctive claim construction based on the full intrinsic record.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in an Amazon v. B.S.D. Crown IPR, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve a disputed claim term.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00056

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully challenged a pharmaceutical patent (11260061) in an IPR, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board's decision hinged on extensive claim construction, particularly defining 'adsorbed onto a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.'

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00055

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP regarding patent 9,486,407. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that prior art (Dohil) renders Claim 35 obvious.

Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00054

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's patent (11,246,828) over orally disintegrating tablet claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art showing obviousness.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00052

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's patent (10632069). The review challenges claims 1-17 based on obviousness over prior art, including Dohil and FDA guidance.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 23, 2024

Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in this IPR, challenging all 20 claims of Netlist's patent (11880319) based on obviousness and anticipation. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over various combinations of prior art, including Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim. This decision sets a strong precedent for challenging memory module initialization claims using industry standards and technical literature.

Mr.Rahul Bagga v.The Controller of Patent

Madras High Court · 195609216

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an abandonment order related to his patent application (No. 202041009246). The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload the response to the First Examination Report on the deadline due to technical/server errors on the respondent's website. The court found merit in this claim and ordered the abandonment quashed, directing the respondent to accept the response.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 22, 2024

Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Sanofi-Aventis v.Amgen revocation proceedings)

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001195

Dehns, a law firm representing clients before the Unified Patent Court, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to all written pleadings and evidence from a concluded revocation action between Sanofi-Aventis entities and Amgen concerning European patent EP 3 666 797. The Judge-rapporteur granted access to the written pleadings and evidence (subject to redaction of personal data) but rejected the request for other procedural documents that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 22, 2024

Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.)

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001194

Dehns, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in revocation and counterclaim for revocation proceedings between Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen, Inc. concerning European patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of First Instance granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, applying the general principles established by the Court of Appeal in Ocado/Autostore, but rejected the request for other documents that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 22, 2024

Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Sanofi-Aventis v.Amgen revocation proceedings)

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001193

Dehns, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in a revocation action between Sanofi-Aventis entities and Amgen concerning European patent EP 3 666 797, which had been decided on 16 July 2024. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) granted access to the written pleadings and evidence after redaction of personal data, but rejected the request in respect of other listed documents (such as administrative letters, formal checks, and proof of payment) that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence within the meaning of Rule 262.1(b).

patent terminated or settled · Oct 22, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

patent terminated or settled · Oct 22, 2024

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a Nokia wireless‑technology patent and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

patent terminated or settled · Oct 22, 2024

Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,571,833 after instituting the review. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.

patent · Oct 22, 2024

MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC

· IPR2025-00085

MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor voltage and clock management, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.

patent · Oct 22, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy