US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 45 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
The PTAB held that all 34 claims of Netlist's ’060 memory‑package patent are obvious over prior art such as Kim, Rajan, Riho, and Wyman. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed, leading to a complete invalidation of the patent.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent succeeded, finding all 20 claims obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman. The decision invalidates the entire patent.
patent denied · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
Samsung’s request for Director review of two PTAB decisions was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2025‑01431, finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent unpatentable after Samsung demonstrated obviousness over Harris, FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the Board finding the claim obvious over Ellsberry and other prior art. The term “rank” was construed to include only a single memory device.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
The PTAB held that most of the claims of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry reference (and its combinations), cancelling 63 of 65 challenged claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived. Samsung emerged as the prevailing challenger.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
Netlist has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-01431 and the PTAB has emailed both parties with strict response limits and a five‑day deadline.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
The PTAB issued a memorandum stating that, absent extraordinary circumstances, IPR panels must resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision. The rule aims to streamline proceedings and prevent repeated issue‑by‑issue hearings.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01446
Court decision.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01314
Maxell opposes Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,180,198, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed playlist and dubbing features and that the petitioner’s expert testimony is merely argumentative.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01315
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art fails to teach key claim elements and the expert declaration offers no new analysis. The Board is urged to reject institution.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01312
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art does not teach the claimed video‑processing features and the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent and unsupported.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· PGR2025-00081
Nicholson Manufacturing has petitioned the PTAB to cancel all 18 claims of BID Group Technologies' AI‑enabled log debarking patent, asserting obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and indefiniteness.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
· IPR2025-01496
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
· IPR2025-01493
Apple files an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of HBCU Messaging’s ’450 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references covering mobile messaging.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01494
BOE has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Samsung Display’s ’503 patent covering inclined pads and bumps for LCD displays, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
· IPR2025-01491
FedEx has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' data‑security‑for‑file‑system patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art file‑system and cryptographic references.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
· IPR2025-01488
Apple petitions to invalidate 30 claims of a messaging patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering mobile messaging, presence, and unified UI. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01456
Infineon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MOSAID’s ’028 patent covering configurable clock modes in non‑volatile memory, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-01495
Shenzhen Qianfenyi (Maxeye) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Wacom’s ’866 active‑stylus patent, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over Kremin, Westhues, and Partow references.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Netlist’s 10,025,731 memory‑module patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art from Ellsberry, Dour, and Abadeer. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01489
Infineon filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of MOSAID’s 2008 ‘448 patent covering distributed multiplexing circuits. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Pixley and Watanabe references, supported by an expert declaration.
patent · Aug 29, 2025
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
· IPR2025-01490
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ storage‑device performance monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wolf, Kamiyama, and Woods under 35 U.S.C. §103.
