Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Radian Memory Systems LLC

IPR2025-01377

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Radian’s ’656 flash‑memory controller patent, asserting obviousness over Reiter, SCSI standards and other prior art. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01377
Filing Date
8 May 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00708

Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC

Milestone Entertainment files a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited Kelly and Walker references do not anticipate or render obvious any of the 20 challenged claims of its 8,529,336 gaming patent.

patentIPR2024-01013

LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC

The PTAB affirmed all claims of LG Energy Solution’s lithium‑ion battery patent after finding the challenger’s obviousness arguments unsupported. The Board emphasized that Ohata’s masterbatch embeds carbon nanotubes, preventing the required ionic attachment, and rejected the petitioner’s speculation about resin removal.

patentIPR2024-01269

Google LLCvsMetarail, Inc.

Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Metarail, Inc.'s patent on deep-linking and e-commerce technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).

patentIPR2024-01157

Imperative Care, Inc.vsINARI MEDICAL, INC.

Imperative Care, Inc. successfully challenged nine claims of INARI MEDICAL's hemostasis valve patent (11697011) at the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence for Petitioner’s anticipation challenge against Claim 1 after adopting a broad interpretation of the term 'filament.'

patentIPR2024-00384

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al.vsSerendia, LLC

Jeisys Medical and Serendia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,320,536 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

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