Computer memory — US PTAB Patent Cases
30 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 30 total
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 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 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.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netlist’s 9,824,035 DDR3 memory module patent, asserting that claims 2‑9 and 14‑20 are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references.
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
In IPR2023‑00454, the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417 are obvious over the combined teachings of the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
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 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.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics files a PGR petition to invalidate Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent, asserting abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness and obviousness. The petition leans on an expert declaration and extensive prior‑art citations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on all 22 claims, based on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron seeks to invalidate five claims of Netlist’s memory‑module patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Osanai, Tokuhiro, and Takefman references, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to join Samsung’s IPR against Netlist’s memory‑module patent. The request centers on the inapplicability of General Plastic factors to me‑too joinder petitions.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter‑partes review of Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent on claims 1‑5 after Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 24 claims. The Board declined to exercise discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
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.