Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2018‑00362, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board examined Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 9,606,907 B2 covering a memory module architecture. Samsung Electronics (as petitioner) asserted that the claims were obvious over the prior‑art device disclosed in Ellsberry, either alone or in combination with industry standards such as JEDEC JESD21‑C, Halbert, Ruckerbauer, and Stone. Netlist argued that the petitioner improperly mixed mutually exclusive embodiments of Ellsberry. After extensive claim‑by‑claim analysis, the Board concluded that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings and found claims 1‑39 and 42‑65 unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 40 and 41 were not found unpatentable. The decision finalizes the institution of the trial and the cancellation of the majority of the patent’s claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. vs Netlist, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 28 challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning oncology/immunotherapy. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed methods under both § 102 and § 103.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Utility affiliates of Berkshire Hathaway Energy settled multiple PTAB IPRs, leading to the termination of the cases for the settling parties while the Board kept the proceedings open for the remaining petitioners.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, 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.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
Phison Electronics CorporationvsVervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash patent. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract, lack written description, are indefinite, and are obvious over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.