US PTAB IP Litigation

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

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

· PGR2025-00071

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.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR proved all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

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 PTAB held that SK Hynix’s IPR against Netlist’s ’537 patent succeeded; all challenged claims were found obvious over Amidi and Klein references.

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.

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’918 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent succeeded; all 30 claims were found obvious and thus unpatentable.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision in the Netlist memory‑module patent case, leaving the Board's ruling intact.

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 PTAB decisions in two Netlist memory‑patent IPRs, leaving the Board’s rulings intact.

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

The PTAB held that Samsung’s 30 claims covering a flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module are obvious over prior art, invalidating the entire ’054 patent. Netlist’s challenge succeeded on grounds of combining Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s backup circuitry, and Hajeck’s over‑voltage protection.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

A PTAB memorandum issued July 29 2025 instructs panels to resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for IPRs and PGRs without an oral hearing, aiming for streamlined adjudication.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 25, 2025

The PTAB held that all 34 claims of Netlist’s 8,787,060 B2 memory‑package patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.

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

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Aug 25, 2025

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 challenged claims unpatentable.

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

The PTAB held that most of the claims of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry reference (alone or combined with standards), cancelling 63 of 65 claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived.

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

· PGR2025-00071

Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 28 claims of Netlist’s 12,308,087 DRAM‑package patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior‑art memory‑stack technologies.

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

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Netlist’s 3‑D stacked DRAM patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art memory stack designs and signaling protocols. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.

SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01453

SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.

patent instituted · Aug 25, 2025

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC

· IPR2025-01398

CrowdStrike has filed a petition for inter partes review of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 11,275,900, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based cyber‑threat classification.

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

· PGR2025-00071

The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across several IPR and PGR proceedings. Some cases were denied based on efficiency or prior rulings, while others proceeded to merits review.

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