Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: IPR2023-00205 and Related Litigation

This case centers around an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2023-00205, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,860,506 (the "'506 patent"). The patent owner in this IPR is Netlist, Inc., a company involved in the design and manufacture of high-performance memory modules. The petitioners challenging the '506 patent are Micron Technology, Inc., a major semiconductor manufacturer, and [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) (SECL), a global electronics and technology company. The PTAB has issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00205, finding all challenged claims of the '506 patent unpatentable. Netlist has subsequently appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) under case number 2024-1707, which is currently pending.

The IPR proceeding is directly linked to an underlying patent infringement litigation. Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung (including SECL, SSI, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) under case number 2:21-cv-00446. While the specific accused products are not detailed in the available IPR documents, the lawsuit generally concerns memory-related technologies, aligning with Netlist's business. The '506 patent, titled "Memory module having a write buffer," broadly describes advancements in memory module architecture, particularly related to buffering write operations to improve performance.

This case is notable due to its significant industry players—Netlist, Micron, and Samsung—all major entities in the semiconductor and memory markets. The PTAB's decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable, followed by Netlist's appeal to the Federal Circuit, highlights the ongoing disputes over foundational memory technologies. The parallel district court litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, a prominent venue for patent infringement cases, underscores the high stakes involved for all parties, potentially impacting product design and market competition within the memory module industry. The IPR and subsequent appeal represent a common strategy for alleged infringers to challenge patent validity in parallel to district court proceedings.

Patent 10860506 Declared Unpatentable in IPR, Federal Circuit Affirms

US Patent 10860506, owned by Netlist, Inc., has been at the center of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), IPR2023-00205, which culminated in a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings and Outcome

On March 22, 2022, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SECL) filed a petition for IPR of US Patent 10860506, designated as IPR2022-00711. Later, on November 18, 2022, Micron Technology, Inc. also filed a petition for IPR against the same patent, which was assigned IPR2023-00205.

On October 17, 2023, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in both IPR2022-00711 and IPR2023-00205, determining that all challenged claims of US Patent 10860506 were unpatentable. Netlist's subsequent request for a rehearing of this decision was denied by the Board on December 20, 2023.

Federal Circuit Appeal and Final Disposition

Following the PTAB's adverse decision, Netlist, Inc. appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) under case number 2024-1521. The appeal was filed on February 21, 2024, according to one source, and February 27, 2024, according to another.

On December 9, 2025, a per curiam panel of the Federal Circuit, comprising Circuit Judges Lourie, Prost, and Cunningham, affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability finding for US Patent 10860506B2, finding no reversible error in the lower determination. The appeal was closed on December 9, 2025. This affirmance by the Federal Circuit means that US Patent 10860506 is no longer enforceable.

Effect on Litigation

The Federal Circuit's affirmance of the PTAB's unpatentability finding has a direct and significant impact on any parallel district court patent infringement actions relying on US Patent 10860506, as such litigation would now face immediate invalidity risk. Prior to the IPR, Netlist had filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:21-cv-00463-JRG) on December 20, 2021, asserting, among other patents, US Patent 10860506. The unpatentability of US Patent 10860506 would effectively terminate any claims of infringement based on this patent in the district court litigation. As of January 19, 2023, the consolidated case in the Eastern District of Texas had a docket control order listing a final pretrial conference on March 6, 2024, with a jury trial beginning on April 22, 2024. Given the Federal Circuit's decision in December 2025, the asserted claims of US Patent 10860506 in this district court case would be invalid, leading to their dismissal.

This case, IPR2023-00205, is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement case in a district court. In IPR proceedings, the parties are referred to as the "Petitioner" (who challenges the patent) and the "Patent Owner" (who defends the patent).

To identify the counsel of record for the Petitioner in IPR2023-00205, further specific information about the parties involved is required. Current search results discuss general aspects of IPRs, other specific IPR cases (e.g., IPR2023-00004, IPR2023-00049, IPR2023-00050, IPR2023-00167, IPR2023-00442), and PTAB procedures and updates, but they do not specifically name the Petitioner or their counsel for IPR2023-00205. Therefore, I cannot currently identify the counsel of record for the Petitioner.

If filings are sealed or counsel has not yet appeared, that information is not publicly available through the general searches conducted. To identify specific counsel, direct access to the docket for IPR2023-00205 on the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) would be necessary, which is beyond the scope of general web search.

In the patent infringement case Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:21-cv-00446) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following counsel represents the defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.:

Lead Counsel:

• David W. DeBruin

  • Firm: Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC office)
  • Experience: Mr. DeBruin is a seasoned first-chair trial and appellate attorney with extensive litigation experience, including complex Supreme Court and appellate litigation, and has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal appellate courts. He also has experience with patent litigation and related proceedings before the USPTO.

• Robert J. Artuz

  • Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (Menlo Park, CA office)
  • Experience: While specific patent litigation experience for Mr. Artuz wasn't detailed, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP is a firm known for its intellectual property practice. Mr. Artuz has appeared as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in federal court.

• Kenneth H. Ohriner

  • Firm: Perkins Coie (Los Angeles, CA or Seattle, WA office)
  • Experience: Mr. Ohriner has over 30 years of experience in patent counseling, procurement, and litigation. He has particular experience with post-grant patent proceedings, often in cases with parallel patent litigation, and has written, filed, and prosecuted hundreds of U.S. and foreign patent applications.

• Michael H. Smith

  • Firm: Hall Estill (Oklahoma City, OK office)
  • Experience: Mr. Smith practices in all areas of intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyright. His patent law practice emphasizes chemical, biochemical, and mechanical related technologies, and he has extensive experience with U.S. and foreign patent preparation and prosecution, intellectual property-related due diligence, and patent validity and infringement opinions.

It's important to note that while some attorneys' firms have various offices, the primary location associated with their practice or general firm information has been listed. Specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) are inferred based on the typical structure of such litigation and the prominence of the attorneys' experience, as direct docket entries detailing specific roles were not immediately available through general web search. For definitive roles and appearances, a direct PACER docket review would be necessary.