US PTAB IP Litigation

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01276

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR for patent 12070691 (ImagineAR), finding that Niantic failed to meet the required likelihood standard.

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01275

The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2025-01275, finding that Niantic failed to meet the non-discretionary standard required for proceeding.

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01274

The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01274 after finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were more likely than not unpatentable.

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01273

The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01273 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-01269

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR in a dispute between Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required likelihood standard.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent are obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, rendering them unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung and its Micron affiliates successfully challenged Netlist's 8,787,060 B2 memory‑package patent. The PTAB found all 34 claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the patent unpatentable.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

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

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’215 memory‑module patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all 29 claims unpatentable as obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard.

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

In IPR2023‑00454, the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417 are obvious over the combined teachings of the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references. Samsung and its co‑petitioners prevailed, resulting in the patent’s claims being invalidated.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over Ellsberry and related references.

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

patent instituted · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent in a PGR, resulting in all 20 claims being held unpatentable for obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR institution after the ITC found the challenged claims valid and commercially successful, resulting in a stay of the IPR pending further opinion.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the Netlist ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory claims are obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection, rendering all 30 claims unpatentable.

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

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’833 patent succeeded, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Best, Bonella, and Mills. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of PTAB decisions upholding Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegated authority.

patent · Jul 11, 2025

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

The PTAB issued a memorandum stating that panels will now decide all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for PGRs and IPRs without an oral hearing, aiming for more efficient resolutions.

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

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decision intact.

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