Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In a memorandum dated July 29, 2025, the PTAB announced a procedural change affecting inter partes review (IPR) and post‑grant review (PGR) proceedings that have not yet held an oral hearing. Effective immediately, and unless extraordinary circumstances exist, panels must address every ground raised in the petition within their final written decisions. The Board argues that this will produce more compact decisions and avoid the need to revisit grounds on remand after Director Review or Federal Circuit appeals. The guidance applies to the Samsung‑Netlist IPR (IPR2026‑00018) among others, signaling a shift toward written‑only adjudication of petition grounds.
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
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Murata’s challenge to Georgia Tech’s ’914 patent, finding no legal error in the decision.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully convinced the PTAB that its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design's battery patent were strong enough for institution. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations, leading to the IPR being instituted on all 16 claims.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al.vsKolon Industries, Inc.
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon's 10,196,765 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, asserting that all six claims are obvious over prior art such as Nakayasu and Fritsch.
Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd.vsCorning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
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.