IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 51 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 34 claims of Netlist's ’060 memory‑package patent are obvious over prior art such as Kim, Rajan, Riho, and Wyman. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed, leading to a complete invalidation of the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent succeeded, finding all 20 claims obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman. The decision invalidates the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director review of two PTAB decisions was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2025‑01431, finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent unpatentable after Samsung demonstrated obviousness over Harris, FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the Board finding the claim obvious over Ellsberry and other prior art. The term “rank” was construed to include only a single memory device.
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 (and its combinations), cancelling 63 of 65 challenged claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived. Samsung emerged as the prevailing challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-01431 and the PTAB has emailed both parties with strict response limits and a five‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a memorandum stating that, absent extraordinary circumstances, IPR panels must resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision. The rule aims to streamline proceedings and prevent repeated issue‑by‑issue hearings.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell opposes Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,180,198, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed playlist and dubbing features and that the petitioner’s expert testimony is merely argumentative.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art fails to teach key claim elements and the expert declaration offers no new analysis. The Board is urged to reject institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art does not teach the claimed video‑processing features and the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent and unsupported.
Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Nicholson Manufacturing has petitioned the PTAB to cancel all 18 claims of BID Group Technologies' AI‑enabled log debarking patent, asserting obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and indefiniteness.
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple files an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of HBCU Messaging’s ’450 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references covering mobile messaging.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Samsung Display’s ’503 patent covering inclined pads and bumps for LCD displays, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' data‑security‑for‑file‑system patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art file‑system and cryptographic references.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple petitions to invalidate 30 claims of a messaging patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering mobile messaging, presence, and unified UI. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MOSAID’s ’028 patent covering configurable clock modes in non‑volatile memory, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi (Maxeye) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Wacom’s ’866 active‑stylus patent, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over Kremin, Westhues, and Partow references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Netlist’s 10,025,731 memory‑module patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art from Ellsberry, Dour, and Abadeer. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of MOSAID’s 2008 ‘448 patent covering distributed multiplexing circuits. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Pixley and Watanabe references, supported by an expert declaration.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ storage‑device performance monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wolf, Kamiyama, and Woods under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
Atrius has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate ABC IP’s forced‑reset trigger patent (US 12,038,247) by arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents and publicly posted YouTube videos that disclose a three‑position selector.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’510 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition presents three grounds, each invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103, targeting the entire claim set.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 8,918,127, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art messaging systems. The petition relies on Horvath and Tsampalis publications and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,620,701, alleging obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition follows multiple infringement lawsuits in Texas that rely on the same patent.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services’ hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing that claims 1‑14 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of MessageLoud’s ’964 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition argues that prior‑art systems already disclosed in‑vehicle message queuing, audio playback and user controls.
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.