Judge Profile

Daniel J. Galligan

64 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

64 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

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 all challenged claims unpatentable

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

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

· PGR2026-00001

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.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· PGR2026-00001

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.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· PGR2026-00001

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.

patent terminated or settled

JACS Solutions, Inc. v.Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies

· IPR2024-00484

JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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 all challenged claims unpatentable

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

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

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 all challenged claims unpatentable

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

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

· IPR2026-00018

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the ’918 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck. All 30 challenged claims were declared unpatentable.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2025-01431

The PTAB’s Final Written Decision invalidated all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 Flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module patent after Samsung and Micron proved the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck references.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2026-00018

In IPR2026‑00018 the PTAB held that Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent obvious over a combination of Kim, Rajan, Riho and Wyman. The Board adopted the district‑court claim constructions and rejected Netlist’s arguments about non‑DRAM limitations and collision risks.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2026-00018

Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the Board finding the claims obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2026-00017

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent. Samsung successfully showed the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2026-00017

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 patent obvious over prior art. The Board adopted key claim constructions and invalidated the entire patent.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all twenty claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent. The PTAB held the claims obvious over the Kim, Rajan, and Wyman references and declared them unpatentable.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00107

Apple’s IPR against Samsung’s 10,313,077 patent on Wi‑Fi 802.11ax signaling was instituted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim based on obviousness over Bharadwaj and Yu prior art.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00109

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung’s 10,313,077 B2 Wi‑Fi patent after Apple’s petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 1. All 14 claims are now subject to review on obviousness grounds.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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 all challenged claims unpatentable

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

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

· PGR2026-00001

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.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· PGR2026-00001

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.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· PGR2026-00001

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· PGR2026-00001

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.

patent denied

Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2025-00441

The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd. because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution.

patent denied

Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2025-00442

The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.

patent instituted

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00935

Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →