US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 36 of 188 · 5,620 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs involving Netlist patents, leaving the PTAB’s rulings in place.
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.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 9,235,428 before the Board institutes the case, arguing that the proceeding is at an early stage and dismissal would save resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving Sinclair Pharma and others versus Hydrafacial, staying the proceeding after the ITC affirmed the claims’ validity and commercial success.
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.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,215 B1 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all 29 claims obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
A PTAB memorandum issued on July 29, 2025 instructs panels to resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for IPR and PGR cases lacking an oral hearing, aiming for streamlined rulings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition challenging Netlist’s 12,373,366 DIMM patent, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over older memory‑module art. The petition seeks cancellation of all 38 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,606,204, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile authentication and key‑exchange techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,973,864, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art cryptographic references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and requests institution of the review.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 and 9‑13 of U.S. Patent 9,235,428, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering web proxies and GUI rendering.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition against Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, seeking to invalidate all 38 claims as obvious. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art patents by Perego, Harris, and Amidi covering memory‑module architecture and power‑management techniques.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. LTD. and Intercurrency Software LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01586 after reaching a confidential settlement over a foreign‑exchange trading patent.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac’s IPR against Champion Power’s generator patent continues after Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settle and exit the case. The Board granted motions to terminate the settling parties and keep the settlement confidential.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,143,145 and jointly request that the settlement be treated as business confidential information. The petition also seeks MWE's withdrawal from the proceeding.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,327,426, which covers federated single‑sign‑on methods. The petitioner alleges lack of novelty and obviousness based on the Hinton and Burch prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all thirteen claims.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01457 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This allows the case to move forward to a merits trial.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,398,209 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential information.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.