US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 48 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Aug 27, 2025
Nokia of America Corporation v.SPADA INNOVATIONS, INC.
· IPR2025-01442
Nokia of America has filed an inter partes review petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of SPADA Innovations' ’142 patent, asserting that the claimed PON‑VRF combination is obvious over prior‑art standards and publications.
patent · Aug 27, 2025
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01458
Clean Chemistry has petitioned the PTAB to cancel three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid generation patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references. The petition details claim constructions and shows overlapping component ratios with the references.
patent · Aug 27, 2025
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01459
Clean Chemistry petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑3 under §§ 102 and 103.
patent · Aug 27, 2025
Liberty Energy Services LLC et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01424
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' ’801 patent covering a mobile hydraulic fracturing power system. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over combinations of existing power‑distribution references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent · Aug 27, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01304
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 9‑13 of Dynamic Mesh Networks' U.S. Patent 7,885,243, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art mesh networking references.
patent denied · Aug 27, 2025
Nokia of America Corporation v.SPADA INNOVATIONS, INC.
· IPR2025-01442
The USPTO Board denied institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings, including IPR2025-01442, citing failure to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
Samsung and its Micron affiliates successfully invalidated all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent in an IPR, finding the claims obvious over prior art references Kim, Rajan, and Wyman.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
The PTAB found the majority of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent claims obvious over the Ellsberry reference and related standards, cancelling 63 of 65 challenged claims while leaving claims 40‑41 intact.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent denied · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
The USPTO denied Samsung's petition for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions intact. The Director recused herself, and authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
patent denied · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s ’912 patent, with the PTAB finding claim 16 unpatentable as obvious over the Ellsberry reference.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent obvious over the Perego disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in Samsung’s PGR, finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 hybrid memory module patent unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
patent denied · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decisions in two Netlist memory patent IPRs, leaving the Board's findings final.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
In an IPR, the PTAB held that Samsung's challenge to Netlist's ’833 patent succeeded, finding all 28 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Best, Bonella, and Mills references.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent denied · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
patent · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
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.
