Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.

IPR2025-01402

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01402
Judge(s)
Bryan F. Moore, Jon M. Jurgovan, Kamran Jivani
Decision Date
25 August 2025

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.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call