US PTAB IP Litigation

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent were obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the claims unpatentable.

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

The PTAB held that claims 18‑23, 39‑44, and 56‑60 of Netlist’s ’537 patent are obvious over the Amidi and Klein references, rendering all 17 challenged claims unpatentable. The decision follows an institution on the same claims and denies the patent owner’s motions.

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

Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of Netlist’s high‑bandwidth memory patent. Samsung argues the Director has already rejected Netlist’s real‑party‑in‑interest arguments and that Netlist waived its Fintiv arguments, supporting denial of the review.

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

Netlist requests the PTAB Director reverse the institution of a PGR against its ’087 patent, arguing Samsung failed to name Samsung Electronics America as a real party in interest. The filing also highlights duplication with parallel ITC proceedings involving Google and Super Micro.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

Samsung and Micron petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision in Netlist’s DRAM patent (U.S. 7,619,912). The Director recused, and Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent denied the request, leaving the PTAB’s final written decision intact.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck, rendering the claims unpatentable.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

Samsung and its co‑petitioners successfully proved that Netlist’s 10,949,339 B2 memory‑module patent was obvious over prior‑art references Ellsberry and Halbert. The PTAB declared all 35 challenged claims unpatentable.

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

The PTAB held that all claims challenged by Samsung (via SK Hynix) in Netlist’s ’537 patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Amidi and Klein.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decisions in two Netlist memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings intact.

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

This exhibit memo outlines new PTAB procedures requiring panels to decide all raised grounds in a final written decision for inter partes review and post‑grant review cases, unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The policy aims to promote efficiency and prevent re‑opening of issues on remand.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

The PTAB sent an email to counsel confirming receipt of Netlist’s Director Review request in PGR2025‑00071. Samsung may submit a 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung's challenge to Netlist's ’160 memory‑package patent failed; all 20 claims were found obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the district‑court construction of “array die” and rejected Patent Owner’s arguments about non‑DRAM dies and collision risks.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

In IPR2025-01402 the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard. The decision clears the way for Samsung’s memory products.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

The PTAB held claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 patent unpatentable after finding it obvious over the Ellsberry reference. Samsung’s construction of “rank” as a single‑device rank was adopted, and the patent owner’s supplemental evidence was dismissed.

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

The PTAB held that all challenged claims of Netlist’s ’833 hybrid memory patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Best, Bonella, and Mills. Samsung, as petitioner, prevailed on both claim construction and obviousness grounds.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two IPRs involving Netlist patents, citing the Director's recusal and delegated authority. The Board's Final Written Decisions remain final.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s final written decisions in two Netlist IPRs. Because the Director was recused, authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent, who affirmed the PTAB decisions as final.

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