Computer hardware — US PTAB Patent Cases
129 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 5 · 129 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01321 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The motion stresses public‑policy benefits of early settlement and resource conservation.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate nine claims of Cloud Byte’s ‘632 patent covering server‑cooling abnormality detection. The petition relies on the combination of two prior‑art references, Hira and Shiga, to argue obviousness.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cloud Byte's U.S. Patent 9,651,320 covering server‑cooling fan control. The petition relies on a combination of prior art (Sato, Nakamura, Jin) to argue obviousness under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a memorandum stating that panels will now decide all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for PGRs and IPRs without an oral hearing, aiming for more efficient resolutions.
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.
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.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron's request for Director Review of two Netlist IPR decisions, leaving the PTAB's final written decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron's request for Director Review of PTAB decisions in two Netlist IPRs, leaving the Board's rulings final.
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.
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.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.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition against the ’596 patent is challenged by Concurrent Ventures and XtreamEdge, who argue the petition fails to identify claim construction and does not show prior art meets the claimed hardware queue limitations, seeking a discretionary denial of institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2, 5, 7‑8, and 11 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’395 patent on the ground of obviousness over Moir and Martínez. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Neural AI’s GPU‑AI patent. The petitioner argues the Board ignored trial‑date timing data and the patent’s recent issuance, which should weigh against discretionary denial.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Neural AI’s RE49461 patent covering GPU‑based neural network execution. The petition relies on six obviousness grounds based on Buck, Wilt, nnet, ANN and GPU Gems references. It also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,347,657, arguing that the proceeding is at an early stage and termination serves public policy and efficiency.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based neural‑network patent, arguing the Board ignored key timing and patent‑age evidence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based AI patent. The company contends the Board ignored key trial‑date evidence, the patent’s recent issuance, and the opponent’s failure to file a POPR.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
The USPTO denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a Director’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00609, leaving the institution denial in place.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of its reissued RE48,438 patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references—Kirk, Oh, Tamura, and GPU Gems—to argue obviousness under § 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of a reissued patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including its own Nickolls GPU patent, an ANN conference paper, the Tamura Japanese patent, and the GPU Gems book.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 12,021,679 and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD filed a joint motion to keep their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,570,034, leaving Intel as the remaining petitioner.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed a petition to invalidate 12,021,679, alleging that its claims are obvious over earlier MultiMATLAB publications and IBM documentation. The petition requests that the PTAB institute an IPR and cancel claims 1‑19.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,082,289 B2, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute over a GPU patent, filing a joint motion that led the Board to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
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.