Daniel J. Galligan
64 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
64 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 patent are obvious over prior art combining Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, and therefore unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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, and the claims were declared unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent unpatentable. Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the claims were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck. The Board’s reasoning hinged on motivation‑to‑combine and claim construction of “memory module.”
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, challenging claims related to OFDMA scheduling and parameter switching.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged Wilus Institute's patent claims (1-14) for obviousness over prior art related to Wi-Fi signaling standards. The PTAB found the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting the IPR on all 14 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Wilus Institute, challenging 16 wireless communication claims based on obviousness over prior art references like Lee.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
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.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
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.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged U.S. Patent 8,275,827, leading the PTAB to find all 14 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by the Carter reference and obviousness over Carter and Pitzel.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged 15 claims of the ’827 patent, finding them obvious over the OceanStore system. Anticipation arguments failed, and the Board adopted broader claim constructions that still rendered the claims unpatentable.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsara Inc. against Motive Technologies, Inc., challenging 7 claims in patent 11875580. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on claim 1 based on prior art combinations.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
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.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd. because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
The PTAB denied Dexcowin Global’s inter partes review petition against Aribex’s portable x‑ray device patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim. The Board rejected anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on a continuous high‑voltage DC power limitation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
The Board found several claims of Patent No. 11,018,704 B1 unpatentable over prior art (Jüschke and Holt), primarily based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision involved extensive claim construction, notably finding that 'associated with' includes models implemented in a base station and that 'representation of' allows for modeled signals.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Google (challenger) failed to prove obviousness of Touchstream's 2013 smart‑TV control patent. The PTAB affirmed all challenged claims, leaving the patent fully intact.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied WIZ, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd., finding that a statutory disclaimer covered all challenged claims.
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.