Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC

Mercedes-Benz and patent‑assertion firm Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025‑00986 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes, ending the proceeding before it was instituted.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC

Headwater Research filed a response defending the PTAB’s denial of Samsung’s IPR institution. The brief argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial under § 314(a) is statutorily authorized.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, 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.

Sony CorporationvsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,612,805, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.