IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 43 of 140 · 4,175 total
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Incorporated v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Nurotron Global SARL, Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a procedural dispute about the proper method of serving a Statement of Claim in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant sought to serve the Statement of Claim on the defendant's legal representative from prior provisional measures proceedings, but the court rejected this approach. The court held that a lawyer authorized in provisional measures proceedings is not automatically authorized to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action, and ordered service to be effected via the Hague Service Convention under Rule 274 RoP.
Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 875 683. The court held that the opt-out from the Court's exclusive competence had been effectively withdrawn on 20 December 2023 by a registered UPC representative, and that the lack of a written mandate or power of attorney could not be invoked as a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent were obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 18‑23, 39‑44, and 56‑60 of Netlist’s ’537 patent are obvious over the Amidi and Klein references, rendering all 17 challenged claims unpatentable. The decision follows an institution on the same claims and denies the patent owner’s motions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of Netlist’s high‑bandwidth memory patent. Samsung argues the Director has already rejected Netlist’s real‑party‑in‑interest arguments and that Netlist waived its Fintiv arguments, supporting denial of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision in Netlist’s DRAM patent (U.S. 7,619,912). The Director recused, and Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent denied the request, leaving the PTAB’s final written decision intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its co‑petitioners successfully proved that Netlist’s 10,949,339 B2 memory‑module patent was obvious over prior‑art references Ellsberry and Halbert. The PTAB declared all 35 challenged claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all claims challenged by Samsung (via SK Hynix) in Netlist’s ’537 patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Amidi and Klein.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decisions in two Netlist memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
This exhibit memo outlines new PTAB procedures requiring panels to decide all raised grounds in a final written decision for inter partes review and post‑grant review cases, unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The policy aims to promote efficiency and prevent re‑opening of issues on remand.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email to counsel confirming receipt of Netlist’s Director Review request in PGR2025‑00071. Samsung may submit a 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung's challenge to Netlist's ’160 memory‑package patent failed; all 20 claims were found obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the district‑court construction of “array die” and rejected Patent Owner’s arguments about non‑DRAM dies and collision risks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2025-01402 the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard. The decision clears the way for Samsung’s memory products.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 patent unpatentable after finding it obvious over the Ellsberry reference. Samsung’s construction of “rank” as a single‑device rank was adopted, and the patent owner’s supplemental evidence was dismissed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of Netlist’s ’833 hybrid memory patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Best, Bonella, and Mills. Samsung, as petitioner, prevailed on both claim construction and obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two IPRs involving Netlist patents, citing the Director's recusal and delegated authority. The Board's Final Written Decisions remain final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s final written decisions in two Netlist IPRs. Because the Director was recused, authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent, who affirmed the PTAB decisions as final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s 30 claims covering a flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module are obvious over prior art, invalidating the entire ’054 patent. Netlist’s challenge succeeded on grounds of combining Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s backup circuitry, and Hajeck’s over‑voltage protection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that most of the claims of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry reference (alone or combined with standards), cancelling 63 of 65 claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 28 claims of Netlist’s 12,308,087 DRAM‑package patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior‑art memory‑stack technologies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Netlist’s 3‑D stacked DRAM patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art memory stack designs and signaling protocols. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC
SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed a petition for inter partes review of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 11,275,900, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based cyber‑threat classification.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across several IPR and PGR proceedings. Some cases were denied based on efficiency or prior rulings, while others proceeded to merits review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01402 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims. The decision was based on a merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ashok Kumar (Unkown)
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Crucially, the court ordered a local commission to be conducted to inspect and inventory all infringing products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby strengthening the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.