Jon M. Jurgovan
168 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
168 cases indexed | Page 1 of 6
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
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.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
Apple’s IPR petition against Samsung’s 802.11ax‑related patent was granted institution, opening the path to potentially invalidate claims 1‑14.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Apple’s challenge to the ’077 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over Bharadwaj and Yu references.
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 obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck, resulting in a complete invalidation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1,10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s 9,824,035 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while claims 2,6, and 22 remain valid.
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, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1‑15 of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 9,824,035 are unpatentable. Samsung and Micron successfully argued that the claims are obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure combined with the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all twenty claims obvious over prior‑art references and declared them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent in an IPR. The Board held that the prior art (Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry) did not teach the claimed ‘data path’ limitations and found no claims 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 under §103(a). The Board’s claim construction limited “rank” to a single device, supporting the obviousness finding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, 10911186, covering multi-user uplink transmission. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Kim, Chu, and Choi across all 18 challenged claims. This institution decision sets the stage for a full trial on technical merit.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Wilus Institute's patent 11716171, challenging claims 1-16 based on obviousness over Kim and Chu/Choi. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung could prove unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent in an IPR, finding them obvious over Perego and JEDEC DDR2 standards. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and dismissed the patent owner’s defenses.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
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 (and its combinations), cancelling 63 of 65 challenged claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived. Samsung emerged as the prevailing challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s ’912 patent, with the PTAB finding claim 16 unpatentable as obvious over the Ellsberry reference.
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 module patent were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
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.