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
Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google LLC filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s 9,647,918 patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
Google LLC et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.
MediaTek Inc.vsDAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information, separate from the patent file.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914 on the basis of obviousness over prior art references Yeh, Dalmia, and Hashemi. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the trial.
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.