US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 17 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory patent obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck, resulting in a complete invalidation.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all twenty claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent. The PTAB held the claims obvious over the Kim, Rajan, and Wyman references and declared them unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 patent obvious over prior art. The Board adopted key claim constructions and invalidated the entire patent.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent. Samsung successfully showed the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The PTAB held that claims 1,10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s 9,824,035 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while claims 2,6, and 22 remain valid.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions final.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The PTAB held that claims 1‑15 of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 9,824,035 are unpatentable. Samsung and Micron successfully argued that the claims are obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure combined with the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings in place.
patent instituted · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving aesthetic device patents, staying the proceeding after an ITC finding of commercial success and non‑invalidity.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all twenty claims obvious over prior‑art references and declared them unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung Electronics challenged Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent in an IPR. The Board held that the prior art (Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry) did not teach the claimed ‘data path’ limitations and found no claims unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
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 under §103(a). The Board’s claim construction limited “rank” to a single device, supporting the obviousness finding.
patent · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
A PTAB memorandum directs that all grounds in IPR and PGR petitions be decided in the final written decision when no oral hearing has occurred, aiming for streamlined rulings. The change applies to the Samsung‑Netlist IPR but is a board‑wide procedural update.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2022-00615, leaving the decision unchanged. The denial stemmed from Director Vidal’s recusal and delegation of authority to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
patent · Oct 27, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2026-00058
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
patent · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netlist’s 9,824,035 DDR3 memory module patent, asserting that claims 2‑9 and 14‑20 are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references.
patent · Oct 24, 2025
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
· IPR2026-00013
Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
patent instituted · Oct 24, 2025
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
· IPR2026-00013
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00013, allowing Dead Air Silencers et al. to challenge Jarvis Arms LLC's patent 12018906 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Oct 23, 2025
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01579
LG Display submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Tianma’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior‑art does not render any of the 19 claims obvious and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent.
patent · Oct 23, 2025
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01579
Tianma seeks an IPR to invalidate LG Display’s OLED touch‑screen patent (US 11,251,394). The petition alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 19 claims.
patent · Oct 22, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2026-00033
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 63 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’337 patent covering broadband wireless repeaters. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent instituted · Oct 22, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
· IPR2026-00072
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
