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

IPR2025-01402

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01402
Judge(s)
STEPHEN C. SIU, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, SHEILA F. McSHANE
Decision Date
25 August 2025

Detailed Summary

In IPR2017-00668, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviewed SK Hynix’s challenge to Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 B2. The petitioner argued that a combination of the Amidi and Klein prior‑art references taught every limitation of the asserted claims, including the selective coupling and isolation features. The patent owner contended that the prior art failed to disclose key claim elements, that the combination would be inoperable, and that undue experimentation would be required. After adopting Federal Circuit claim constructions and evaluating the evidence, the Board concluded that the petitioner had met its burden of proof and found all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The Board also denied the petitioner’s motion to exclude the patent owner’s expert testimony.

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

patentIPR2024-00543

TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.

The PTAB found that a majority of the claims (Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20) related to power management and route optimization systems were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board relied heavily on combining prior art references like Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki to establish invalidity for the patent owner, iQar Inc.

patentIPR2025-01143

ProAmpac Holdings Inc.vsSigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.

The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.

patentIPR2025-00499

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al.vsMicron Technology, Inc. et al.

Micron successfully opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on its 3D NAND patent. The Board finds Yangtze’s arguments unsubstantiated and denies the review.

patentIPR2025-01181

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over the Eagle and Mgrdechian references. The petition argues the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests institution of the IPR.

patentIPR2025-01233

Apple Inc.vsTelcom Ventures LLC

Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures LLC’s ’708 patent, arguing that the Board has not yet decided on institution and that dismissal will conserve resources. The motion references the related district‑court litigation where the patent was dismissed with prejudice.

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