Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.

This case involves an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00017, filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. against Netlist, Inc., challenging the validity of U.S. Patent 9,824,035. Samsung Electronics and its semiconductor subsidiary are global leaders in consumer electronics and semiconductor manufacturing, particularly noted as the world's largest memory chip producers. Netlist, Inc. is a California-based technology company that designs, manufactures, and resells high-performance memory subsystems and NVMe storage products for servers and high-performance computing. Netlist is also recognized for its aggressive strategy in monetizing its substantial patent portfolio, often through litigation against major memory manufacturers, acting as both an operating company and a patent licensor.

The IPR petition targets US Patent 9,824,035, titled "Memory module with data buffering." This patent generally relates to buffer circuits incorporated into memory modules to electrically isolate memory devices, allowing additional devices to be added without compromising signal integrity or speed, and featuring dedicated data paths for each signal line. The technology at issue is critical to modern server-grade DRAM architecture and high-density memory configurations used in cloud infrastructure and enterprise computing environments. The accused products, in related underlying infringement litigation that prompted this IPR, are Samsung's various memory modules, including DDR4, DDR5, DRAM, and High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) products, which Netlist alleges incorporate its patented buffering and data path technologies.

The procedural posture of IPR2026-00017 is before the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where the petition was filed on October 27, 2025. The PTAB subsequently declined to institute the review, citing "procedural reasons". This decision to not institute means the PTAB did not proceed to a full merits review of the patent's validity, often occurring due to discretionary factors such as co-pending district court litigation where a trial date is set before the PTAB's final written decision, or other policy considerations. This venue, the PTAB, is a key forum for challenging patent validity and is frequently used as a defensive tactic in broader patent disputes.

This case is notable as it forms part of an extensive, ongoing intellectual property dispute between Netlist and Samsung, which has spanned multiple courts, including district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the International Trade Commission. Netlist has secured significant jury verdicts against Samsung, including awards of $303.15 million and $118 million for infringement of various memory patents. The dispute involves high-value memory technologies essential for rapidly growing markets such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence. The PTAB's "Not Instituted" decision on procedural grounds for this IPR highlights the discretionary nature of IPR proceedings, which can significantly impact the strategies of both patent owners and challengers in large-scale patent wars.

This analysis focuses on the legal developments and outcome concerning US Patent 9,824,035 in the broader intellectual property dispute between Netlist, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Infringement Litigation (District Court)

Contrary to some general reporting, US Patent 9,824,035 was not among the patents asserted in the two major patent infringement verdicts Netlist secured against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas:

• The first verdict, on April 21, 2023, which awarded Netlist $303.15 million, involved U.S. Patent Nos. 10,949,339, 11,016,918, 11,232,054, 8,787,060, and 9,318,160 (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:21-cv-00463-JRG).
• The second verdict, on November 22, 2024, which awarded Netlist $118 million, involved U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912, 11,093,417, and 10,268,608 (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:22-cv-00293).

Therefore, there is no specific final judgment or detailed chronological docket of a district court patent infringement litigation for US Patent 9,824,035.

Parallel ITC Investigation

US Patent 9,824,035 is actively asserted in an ongoing investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC):

• Complaint Filing (2025-09/10): Netlist, Inc. filed a complaint with the ITC in September or October 2025, alleging violations of Section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) by Samsung, Google, and Super Micro through the infringement of six patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035. The patents at issue relate to memory modules, including DDR5 and high-bandwidth memory (HBM).
• Claim Construction (2026-05): As of May 2026, the neutral ITC Staff's position on claim construction for U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035 (and U.S. Patent No. 10,217,523) was reportedly "quite favorable" to Netlist. This indicates the case is proceeding through its pre-hearing phases.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding (IPR2026-00017)

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. challenged the validity of U.S. Patent 9,824,035 through an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB):

• Petition Filing (2025-10-27): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. filed a petition for IPR (IPR2026-00017) against U.S. Patent 9,824,035 on October 27, 2025.
• Institution Denied (Undated, Post-2025-10): The PTAB declined to institute the review, with the status listed as "Institution Denied."
• Context of Denial: This denial occurred during a period, commencing in October 2025, when the Director of the USPTO, John Squires, assumed personal control over IPR institution decisions. During this time, many petitions were denied without detailed reasoning, as part of a broader policy shift to potentially strengthen patent rights by reducing substantive reviews.

Broader Litigation Context

The assertion of U.S. Patent 9,824,035 in the ITC and the IPR proceeding are part of a larger, ongoing "IP war" between Netlist and Samsung, which also includes:

• The two aforementioned Eastern District of Texas patent infringement verdicts (totaling over $420 million) on other memory-related patents.
• A Central District of California jury finding in May 2024 that Samsung materially breached a joint development and license agreement (JDLA) with Netlist.
• Other IPRs and Federal Circuit appeals involving different Netlist patents, such as the Federal Circuit's affirmation of the cancellation of U.S. Patent No. 10,217,523 in March 2025 and the Federal Circuit's affirmation of the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 in December 2025.

Press coverage of the case

There is no independent editorial or legal-press reporting (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, etc.) on IPR2026-00017 itself — neither the filing nor the PTAB's non-institution decision appears to have drawn any dedicated news article. What exists is (a) Netlist's own press releases syndicated through wire services, (b) the ITC's official notices, and (c) trade/foreign-language roundups of the parallel ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1472) in which U.S. Patent 9,824,035 is one of six asserted patents. Notably, the docket record shows the petition was still moving through a Director-level pre-institution process as late as February 2026 — including Netlist's February 13, 2026 sur-reply arguing Samsung failed to name Samsung Electronics America as a real party in interest, and Netlist's February 9, 2026 disclaimer of claims 14 and 17–20 of the '035 patent (DocketAlarm entries) — but no outlet appears to have covered the ultimate institution ruling.

The reporting that does exist frames the dispute at the ITC level. Netlist announced on 2025-09-30 that it had filed a Section 337 complaint seeking exclusion and cease-and-desist orders against Samsung, Google and Super Micro over six patents — 12,737,366; 10,025,731; 10,268,608; 10,217,523; 9,824,035; and 12,308,087 — covering DDR5 modules (RDIMM, UDIMM, SODIMM, MRDIMM) and high-bandwidth memory (HBM). The USITC voted on 2025-12-29 to institute Investigation No. 337-TA-1472 against Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, Samsung Semiconductor, Google and Super Micro, and Netlist touted that vote the next day, quoting CEO C.K. Hong on "preventing the use of Netlist's intellectual property without a license." Communications Daily carried a short item on 2025-12-31 describing the institution; Chinese trade monitors such as the Trade Remedy Information Network and Jiemian also summarized the ITC notice on the same facts.

Outlets and the parties emphasize significance far beyond the '035 patent's merits. Netlist claimed on 2025-12-01 that the USPTO and DOJ filed a joint public interest comment in the ITC action — which Hong called "the first time in history" the two agencies weighed in on a public interest issue in a 337 investigation — signaling administration support for border enforcement of patent rights. In later coverage of separate, new patent assertions, Chinese business press went further into the IP-war narrative: 智通财经 (via 163/新浪财经) on 2026-06-18 and Dan Tri (via Vietnam.vn) reported on Netlist's June 2026 ITC/EDTX expansion to new HBM/DDR5 patents, recounting that prior Texas juries had awarded Netlist $303 million (2023) and $118 million (2024) against Samsung — a cumulative figure of over $420 million that Netlist itself highlighted in its 2026-02-23 release on the Federal Circuit's affirmation of its '314 patent, which noted that the '035 patent is also asserted against Micron in the Western District of Texas and that the PTAB previously upheld claims 2 and 6 of it.

One caution: the non-institution outcome reflected in this case's metadata is not corroborated by any press account I located, and several pieces of coverage predate or do not mention the PTAB ruling — for instance, Netlist reported on 2026-07-16 that the first ITC evidentiary hearing was scheduled for November 2026, implying active parallel litigation rather than a resolved IPR. Accounts also diverge in tone: Netlist's releases cast itself as an innovator whose patents keep being vindicated, while Samsung's filings (per the DocketAlarm record) portray Netlist as having "spent over $100 million to harass Samsung with meritless litigation." The analyst take — that an exclusion order could disrupt AI-hardware supply chains given HBM's role in Nvidia GPUs and Google TPUs — appears mainly in the Dan Tri/Vietnam.vn and 163/新浪财经 pieces, not in U.S. legal press. In short: for the specific IPR2026-00017 proceeding, there is no meaningful press coverage to summarize — only case documents and, at best, contextual reporting on the companion ITC investigation.

Sources

• Ex. 1008 | IPR2026-00017 | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Netlist Inc | Ex Parte
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IPR2026-00017, No. 16 Other other - Patent Owners Sur Reply in Support of POPR (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2026) - IPR2026-00017, No
• IPR2026-00017, No. 5 Notice Mandatory Notice - Patent Owners Mandatory Notices (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2025) - Exhibits:
• IPR2026-00017, No. 8 PO Discretionary Denial Brief - Patent Owners Discretionary Denial Brief (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2025) - IPR2026-00017, No
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• To stop Samsung's rampant, ongoing infringement, Netlist asserted six patents against Samsung at the ITC: 9,824,035; 10,025,731;...
• The Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling Upholding Validity of Netlist '314 Patent - This section contains press releases and other materials from third parties (including paid content)
• The Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling Upholding Validity of Netlist '314 Patent - The Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling Upholding Validity of Netlist '314 Patent
• From: Director_DI To: Williams, Eliot D
• U.S. International Trade Commission Votes to Institute Investigation into Samsung - This section contains press releases and other materials from third parties (including paid content)
• Netlist, Inc. U.S. International Trade Commission Votes to Institute Investigation into Samsung - News

Here is the identified counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. in IPR2026-00017:

Eliot Williams

• Role: Likely lead counsel or a key attorney given his listing.
• Firm: Unspecified in the initial search results, but associated with "WILLIAMS, ELIOT et al.". Further research is needed to confirm the specific firm.
• Office Location: To be determined.
• Notable Experience: While specific details for Eliot Williams are not immediately available for this IPR, patent cases involving Samsung frequently involve complex technology and significant litigation, including PTAB proceedings against various entities like Netlist. Samsung also often works with major IP litigation firms.

Additional Counsel:
The "et al." in "WILLIAMS, ELIOT et al." indicates that other attorneys are also representing the plaintiff(s). However, their specific names and details are not provided in the initial search results. Further in-depth review of the IPR docket or related filings would be necessary to identify all members of the legal team.

As of the current date, based on the provided search results, a definitive list of all attorneys, their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, of counsel), and firm details beyond the initial mention of "WILLIAMS, ELIOT et al." is not fully available. Filings may be sealed or specific appearances might require direct access to the PTAB docket system.The counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. in IPR2026-00017 is:

Eliot D. Williams

• Role: Co-Practice Group Chair for PTAB Trials (likely lead counsel or a key attorney for the petitioner).
• Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.
• Office Location: Palo Alto, California.
• Notable Experience: Mr. Williams has extensive experience with disputed intellectual property matters in federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having appeared in over 300 PTAB Trials. He is also a seasoned appellate oral advocate, having argued nearly two dozen cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The initial search results indicated "WILLIAMS, ELIOT et al." as petitioner counsel. While Eliot D. Williams has been identified and detailed, the "et al." suggests there are other attorneys from Baker Botts or potentially other firms also representing Samsung in this IPR. However, their specific names and roles are not explicitly detailed in the publicly available search snippets, and without direct access to the IPR's docket entries, it is not possible to identify them further without invention.

Netlist, Inc. is represented by:

• Richard M. Bemben
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Richard M. Bemben is a director in Sterne Kessler's Electronics Practice Group and co-chair of the firm's PTAB Practice. He is a recognized leader in post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, having been counsel in over 150 PTAB proceedings (including inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered business method reviews) and more than a dozen related Federal Circuit appeals over the last decade. Patexia ranked him as one of the most active and best-performing PTAB attorneys, notably as the 2nd Best Performing PTAB Attorney Representing Patent Owners in 2023. Prior to his legal career, he served as a patent examiner at the USPTO for approximately six years.

While the available public docket information for IPR2026-00017 specifically lists "Bemben, Richard et al." as Respondent Counsel, other specific attorneys beyond Richard M. Bemben have not been explicitly named in the provided search results for this particular IPR. However, in related IPR proceedings where Netlist, Inc. was a patent owner against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (e.g., IPR2023-00847), H. Annita Zhong and Jonathan M. Lindsay from Irell & Manella, and Jason Sheasby (pro hac vice) were also noted as co-counsel.