Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLC

IPR2025-00214

Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition to invalidate Vervain’s U.S. Patent No. 11,830,546 covering a hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND flash system. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00214
Filing Date
12 June 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01014

Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.

patentIPR2024-00917

fuboTV Media Inc. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

Petitioners fuboTV Media and Yanka Industries filed an authorized response opposing DISH’s Director Review request on patent 10,757,156. They argue the Board’s decision was correct, that DISH raised new and irrelevant theories, and that the request should be denied.

patentIPR2025-00321

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patentIPR2024-00602

i4F Licensing NVvsVILOX AB

i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.

patentIPR2025-00001

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

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Netlist’s 11,386,024 patent covering DDR3 memory‑module training. The petition relies on prior art combinations of Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang and Kim, and cites earlier PTAB decisions that cancelled similar claims. It requests that the Board institute a trial.

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