Patent Cases

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references. Samsung and its co‑petitioners prevailed, and the claims were declared unpatentable.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent unpatentable. Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the claims were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck. The Board’s reasoning hinged on motivation‑to‑combine and claim construction of “memory module.”

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the Board finding the claims obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417, leading the PTAB to find all fifteen claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the Perego disclosure and JEDEC DDR2 standards.

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

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of Samsung’s asserted claims of Netlist’s ’833 patent unpatentable as obvious over the Best, Bonella, and Mills references.

patent instituted · Jul 11, 2025

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.

· IPR2026-00053

Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 9,235,428 before the Board institutes the case, arguing that the proceeding is at an early stage and dismissal would save resources.

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

The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving Sinclair Pharma and others versus Hydrafacial, staying the proceeding after the ITC affirmed the claims’ validity and commercial success.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of PTAB decisions in two IPRs against Netlist, leaving the Board's rulings final.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron's request for Director Review of two Netlist IPR decisions, leaving the PTAB's final written decisions intact.

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

In IPR2026‑00018 the PTAB held that Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent obvious over a combination of Kim, Rajan, Riho and Wyman. The Board adopted the district‑court claim constructions and rejected Netlist’s arguments about non‑DRAM limitations and collision risks.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron's request for Director Review of PTAB decisions in two Netlist IPRs, leaving the Board's rulings final.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the ’918 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck. All 30 challenged claims were declared unpatentable.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable.

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

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,215 B1 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all 29 claims obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering them unpatentable.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in the Netlist IPR, leaving the Board’s ruling unchanged.

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

A PTAB memorandum issued on July 29, 2025 instructs panels to resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for IPR and PGR cases lacking an oral hearing, aiming for streamlined rulings.

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

· PGR2026-00001

Samsung has filed a PGR petition challenging Netlist’s 12,373,366 DIMM patent, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over older memory‑module art. The petition seeks cancellation of all 38 claims.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00115

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,606,204, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile authentication and key‑exchange techniques.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00116

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,973,864, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art cryptographic references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and requests institution of the review.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.

· IPR2026-00053

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 and 9‑13 of U.S. Patent 9,235,428, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering web proxies and GUI rendering.

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

patent mixed · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition against Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, seeking to invalidate all 38 claims as obvious. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art patents by Perego, Harris, and Amidi covering memory‑module architecture and power‑management techniques.

Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 67269878

Mold Tek Packaging Limited challenged a Commercial Court order that had vacated an ad-interim injunction restraining Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling products infringing Mold Tek's patents (IN 4014173 and IN 2987244). The suit patents relate to tamper-evident lid closure systems used for food containers. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Commercial Court had erred in its application of legal principles regarding infringement. Consequently, the original injunction was restored to remain in operation pending a fresh consideration by the lower court.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 10, 2025

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000565

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 10, 2025

Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000564

Nera Innovations Ltd. sued several Xiaomi group entities for infringement of the German and Dutch parts of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless power receivers, based on the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G smartphones. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, to which Nera responded with 33 auxiliary requests to maintain the patent in amended form. The Local Chamber Hamburg partially revoked the patent, declaring it null to the extent its subject matter extended beyond claim 1 as maintained in auxiliary requests 1 and 2, while dismissing the further-reaching revocation counterclaim.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 10, 2025

Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000563

Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which relates to a cutting tool for a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The defendant informed the Registry it would not be represented at the oral hearing and failed to appear, leading the Local Chamber Düsseldorf to decide on the merits as if the defendant had been present. The court granted the application in part, ordering the defendant to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, surrender them to a bailiff, provide detailed information on origin and distribution, and pay provisional costs of EUR 33,335.70.

NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2025-01586

NIUM PTE. LTD. and Intercurrency Software LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01586 after reaching a confidential settlement over a foreign‑exchange trading patent.

GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01457

Generac’s IPR against Champion Power’s generator patent continues after Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settle and exit the case. The Board granted motions to terminate the settling parties and keep the settlement confidential.

patent · Jul 10, 2025

GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01457

Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file.

NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2025-01586

NIUM PTE. Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.