Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. have submitted a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,347,656, owned by Radian Memory Systems LLC. The patent claims a flash memory controller that performs logical‑to‑physical address translation using hierarchical address virtualization. Samsung contends that the invention lacks an inventive concept and is rendered obvious by a combination of prior art references, including the Reiter flash system, the T10 SCSI standards (ZBC, SBC‑4, SPC‑4), and additional disclosures such as Sinclair‑367, Yamada, and Ban. The petition enumerates five grounds covering all 23 claims, each grounded in 35 U.S.C. §103. No institution decision has been made, and the case remains at the petition filing stage.
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 Radian Memory Systems LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Canadian Solar Inc et al.vsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc.'s IPR petition against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to support its arguments regarding prior art combinations in solar cell technology.
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Sandpiper CDN, LLC were likely unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board granted trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds.
Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Nokia and Hisense have settled their dispute over a video‑capable device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense. The motion invokes 35 U.S.C. §317 and requests confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Belden Inc. et al.vsCommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
CommScope successfully defends its flexible cable bag patent as the PTAB denies Belden’s request for director review of a denied institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsKAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
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.