US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's petition for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions intact. The Director recused herself, and authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision in Netlist’s DRAM patent (U.S. 7,619,912). The Director recused, and Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent denied the request, leaving the PTAB’s final written decision 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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decisions in two Netlist memory patent IPRs, leaving the Board's findings final.
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 that all claims challenged by Samsung (via SK Hynix) in Netlist’s ’537 patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Amidi and Klein.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decisions in two Netlist memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
This exhibit memo outlines new PTAB procedures requiring panels to decide all raised grounds in a final written decision for inter partes review and post‑grant review cases, unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The policy aims to promote efficiency and prevent re‑opening of issues on remand.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email to counsel confirming receipt of Netlist’s Director Review request in PGR2025‑00071. Samsung may submit a 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung's challenge to Netlist's ’160 memory‑package patent failed; all 20 claims were found obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the district‑court construction of “array die” and rejected Patent Owner’s arguments about non‑DRAM dies and collision risks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2025-01402 the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard. The decision clears the way for Samsung’s memory products.
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.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that SK Hynix’s IPR against Netlist’s ’537 patent succeeded; all challenged claims were found obvious over Amidi and Klein references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two IPRs involving Netlist patents, citing the Director's recusal and delegated authority. The Board's Final Written Decisions remain final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s final written decisions in two Netlist IPRs. Because the Director was recused, authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent, who affirmed the PTAB decisions as final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’918 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent succeeded; all 30 claims were found obvious and thus unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision in the Netlist memory‑module patent case, leaving the Board's ruling intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of PTAB decisions in two Netlist memory‑patent IPRs, leaving the Board’s rulings intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s 30 claims covering a flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module are obvious over prior art, invalidating the entire ’054 patent. Netlist’s challenge succeeded on grounds of combining Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s backup circuitry, and Hajeck’s over‑voltage protection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
A PTAB memorandum issued July 29 2025 instructs panels to resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for IPRs and PGRs without an oral hearing, aiming for streamlined adjudication.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 34 claims of Netlist’s 8,787,060 B2 memory‑package patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 18‑23, 39‑44, and 56‑60 of Netlist’s ’537 patent are obvious over the Amidi and Klein references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable.
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 (alone or combined with standards), cancelling 63 of 65 claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 28 claims of Netlist’s 12,308,087 DRAM‑package patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior‑art memory‑stack technologies.
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.