US PTAB IP Litigation

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

Netlist seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its memory‑controller patent, arguing a faulty claim construction and insufficient particularity in Samsung’s grounds.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01437

Barco seeks reversal of the PTAB’s final decision on its presentation‑dongle patent, arguing the Board gave insufficient weight to a key license with competitor Crestron and other commercial‑success evidence. The petition contends the Board misapplied precedent on nexus and secondary considerations.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01436

Barco N.V. filed a motion to seal its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01436, arguing that the documents contain confidential licensing and financial data. The Board must decide whether good cause exists to keep the material sealed.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01436

Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink's challenge to patent 10762002. Yealink may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00006

Runergy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion with Trina Solar and Evervolt to terminate their participation in IPR2025-00006 after settling all disputes, including a related ITC proceeding.

patent instituted

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

Samsung filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Netlist over a memory‑module signaling patent. The brief argues the Board correctly construed the claim language and that the six grounds are obvious over Hazelzet. Netlist's challenges on waste of resources and new arguments are rejected.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01438

Barco N.V. seeks reversal of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated claims of its presentation‑dongle patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board improperly discounted a multi‑patent Crestron license and other commercial‑success evidence, misapplying Ancora precedent. A petition for Director Review has been filed.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.

· IPR2024-01433

Cyandia files a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its notification‑method patent, asserting the Board’s claim construction is inconsistent with the district court and the patent’s plain language.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.

· IPR2024-01433

SAP America successfully defended its IPR against Cyandia’s 8,751,948 patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on a plain‑meaning construction of the term “determining a notification method.”

patent instituted

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

The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim references.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.

· IPR2024-01432

Cyandia filed an authorized response opposing SAP’s Director Review Request, asserting that the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that SAP’s arguments were waived. The patent owner relies on Sotera, Motorola, and Dell precedents and highlights Fintiv factors favoring denial.

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

Samsung Electronics successfully challenged Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the PTAB finding all 22 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2024-01431

Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.

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

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.

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

· IPR2024-01465

Google and Samsung have filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR against Cerence’s ‘750 patent. The petition argues the Board acted ultra vires by retroactively applying new guidance and mis‑weighing the Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation. The request seeks reversal and institution of the review.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00039

Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00039 after reaching a settlement and filing covenants not to sue. The Board noted good cause for termination given the early stage of the proceeding.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2024-01430

Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01425

Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate four IPRs before any merits were decided and to keep the settlement confidential.

patent denied

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00028

The PTAB denied QIAGEN’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00028, leaving the institution of the patent intact.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00001

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 24 claims. The Board declined to exercise discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00027

Tecan Group AG seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request relies on discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).

patent denied

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00015

The USPTO Director denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00015, leaving Tecan's patent intact.

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

· IPR2025-00001

Samsung files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,386,024, arguing procedural waivers and public accessibility of the JEDEC proposal.