Kara L. Szpondowski
109 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
109 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent in an IPR, resulting in all 20 claims being found unpatentable for obviousness over Burfeind and Crowley. The patent owner did not respond, leaving the petition unopposed.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent, leading the PTAB to find all ten claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art social‑network and advertising systems.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully invalidated SitNet’s ’932 patent claims covering targeted advertising in situational networks. The Board found all challenged claims (12‑21) obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision clears Meta’s path for its ad‑tech offerings.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art event‑organization and location‑based systems.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art references Burfeind and Crowley. The patent owner did not respond, leaving the petitioner’s arguments unopposed.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent, leading the PTAB to find all ten claims unpatentable as obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that terminated the IPR on patent 11,272,535. The Board granted the joint motion under 35 U.S.C. §317 and kept the settlement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple Inc. successfully requested institution of an IPR against Ziklag IP LLC's patent, asserting that claims are obvious over prior art references Yurt and Logan. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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.
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.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent covering a situational network and roll‑call system. The Board held the claims obvious over the Burfeind and Crowley references under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim construction was required.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering situational‑network advertising. The PTAB found all ten challenged claims (12‑21) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing obviousness over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision finalizes the institution and cancellation of the claims.
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
MotorTech and Altronic settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceeding and keeping the settlement confidential.
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.
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.
In an IPR, the PTAB held that Samsung's challenge to Netlist's ’833 patent succeeded, finding all 28 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Best, Bonella, and Mills references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
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.
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.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR challenging patent 11,641,661. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-24 of patent 10822165 are anticipated or obvious over the prior art reference Wang. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding functional equivalency, particularly concerning 'automatic driving arrangement' and components like the servo motor.
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.
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.
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.