Short Summary
Netlist requests the PTAB Director reverse the institution of a PGR against its ’087 patent, arguing Samsung failed to name Samsung Electronics America as a real party in interest. The filing also highlights duplication with parallel ITC proceedings involving Google and Super Micro.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for Director review, Netlist, Inc. challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute a Patent‑Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,087. The patent owner contends that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. omitted Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA) as a real party in interest, violating the statutory requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Netlist provides extensive evidence of SEA’s involvement in related litigation and licensing, asserting that Samsung’s failure to correct the petition warrants de‑institution. Additionally, Netlist argues that Samsung’s late stipulation does not mitigate the risk of duplicated effort and inconsistent outcomes with parallel ITC proceedings involving Google and Super Micro, further supporting reversal of the institution decision.
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
DISH Network L.L.C. et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network LLC's IPR petition against Entropic Communications, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's argument that combining prior art systems would render the patent obvious.
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.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.
Google LLC et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑14 of Maxell’s ’493 electric‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
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.