Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Radian Memory Systems LLC

This case, Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Radian Memory Systems LLC, involved an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of US Patent 11307995. Unified Patents PTAB Data is a membership-based organization that aims to deter frivolous patent litigation by challenging the validity of patents, particularly those asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), through IPRs. The patent owner, Radian Memory Systems LLC, is a Texas entity tied to Fortress Investment Group LLC that was formed in April 2024. This entity acquired over 80 US patents, including 11307995, from Radian Memory Systems Inc. (RMSI), an operating company that developed technology for data center storage and Flash management. Radian Memory Systems LLC operates as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or NPE, asserting these patents against others, such as Samsung, in district court litigation concerning products that support Zoned Namespaces (ZNS) technology.

The sole patent at issue in this IPR was US Patent 11307995, titled "Distributed Flash translation layer in a host memory." This patent broadly covers systems and methods for cooperative flash management, wherein a host computer system collaborates with a flash memory device to execute operations like garbage collection, wear leveling, and configurable address mapping. This approach aims to replace conventional Flash Translation Layers (FTLs) in Solid State Drives (SSDs) to enhance performance, reduce cost, and improve endurance.

The procedural posture of this case was an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01376) filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The PTAB provides an administrative forum for challenging patent validity based on prior art, serving as a distinct alternative or complement to district court litigation. The case concluded with a settlement, as indicated by its status. This IPR is notable due to Unified Patents' consistent strategy of challenging patents held by NPEs, particularly in critical technology sectors like memory systems. The involvement of Radian Memory Systems LLC, a Fortress-backed entity asserting patents in the high-stakes data center storage market, highlights ongoing validity disputes within that industry. The settlement marks an early resolution to the validity challenge, preventing a full PTAB merits decision.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01376, originally captioned as Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Radian Memory Systems LLC, actually involved Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) as the Petitioners against Patent Owner Radian Memory Systems LLC. The IPR concerned US Patent No. 11,307,995 and ultimately concluded in a settlement.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for this PTAB proceeding:

• Filing of Petition: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed the petition for inter partes review for U.S. Patent No. 11,307,995. The petition filing date for this specific IPR is not directly stated in the immediate search results, but related IPRs by Samsung against Radian were filed around August 5, 2025.
• Institution Decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review for IPR2025-01376 on August 5, 2025.
• Settlement and Termination: The parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate due to settlement. The PTAB granted this Joint Motion on December 30, 2025, terminating the proceedings. The settlement included a confidential agreement and binding term sheet, which were kept separate from the public file. This order did not constitute a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: IPR2025-01376 was one of several parallel IPR proceedings filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. against Radian Memory Systems LLC, all of which settled. Other related IPRs included IPR2025-01266 (Patent 11,544,183 B1), IPR2025-01289 (Patent 11,681,614 B1), IPR2025-01321 (Patent 11,709,772 B1), IPR2025-01350 (Patent 11,740,801 B1), IPR2025-01377 (Patent 11,347,656 B1), and IPR2025-01378 (Patent 11,347,657 B1). All these related IPRs were also terminated on December 30, 2025, following joint motions to terminate due to settlement.

Given the settlement and early termination of the IPR proceedings, there were no reported developments related to claim construction (Markman), extensive discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions.

A direct conflict exists between the provided case metadata and the information found in web searches regarding the plaintiff in IPR2025-01376.

The case metadata in the prompt identifies the plaintiff as "Unified Patents PTAB Data." However, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judgment for IPR2025-01376 (and several related IPRs), dated December 30, 2025, explicitly names "Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd." as the Petitioner in the caption "Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Radian Memory Systems LLC". This judgment then lists the counsel for "Petitioner" as:

• James Glass (Lead Counsel)
• John McKee
• Greg Miraglia
• Nima Hefazi
• Luiz Miranda

Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

The firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP has a prominent patent litigation practice, frequently representing petitioners in IPR proceedings.

Given the instruction to treat the case metadata in the prompt as authoritative for party names, there is an irreconcilable discrepancy: the prompt states Unified Patents PTAB Data as the plaintiff, while the most direct PTAB record for IPR2025-01376 identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the Petitioner and lists their counsel.

Therefore, based on the available search results, the counsel of record for the party named as the Petitioner in the PTAB judgment for IPR2025-01376 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) is Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. However, no specific counsel of record for "Unified Patents PTAB Data" in IPR2025-01376 could be identified from the provided search results, as the primary docket information names a different petitioner for this specific IPR.

I'll research counsel representing Radian Memory Systems LLC (the patent owner/respondent — the "defendant" side in this IPR) across the PTAB proceeding and related litigation.

I have the core answer. Let me verify the patent owner's counsel details and cross-check the parallel district court litigation counsel.

Defendant (Patent Owner / Respondent) representatives — Radian Memory Systems LLC

Framing note: In this proceeding the "defendant" is the Patent Owner / Respondent, Radian Memory Systems LLC. (As the earlier section flagged, the real Petitioner/plaintiff here is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., not "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as the case metadata states — a discrepancy carried over from the metadata and noted, not resolved, below. I therefore treat Radian as the defendant/respondent for this task.)

Radian's PTAB representation in the IPR2025-01376 family was a two-firm team: a Santa Monica patent-owner boutique (Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP) as lead, supported by a Dallas trial firm (Caldwell Cassady & Curry PC). The identification below is drawn from Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices and related PTAB filings in the sibling Radian IPRs (notably IPR2025-01266), which name the same counsel team, and from a declaration in which attorney Xu Zhou expressly lists IPR2025-01376 among the matters on which he is counsel of record.

Source grounding: Patent Owner Radian Memory Systems, LLC's Mandatory Notices / Updated Mandatory Notices (listing Weatherwax as lead counsel and Lowenstein, Woo, Courtney, and Zhou as back-up counsel) — e.g., IPR2025-01266, Paper 5 (July 30, 2025) and Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Oct. 14, 2025), available via the USPTO PTAB documents at the petition page (ptacts.uspto.gov, petition 1558187) and Docket Alarm (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01266/). Xu Zhou's declaration in support of his designation as back-up counsel (IPR2025-01266) expressly identifies IPR2025-01376 among his active matters (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558187/download-documents?artifactId=dSm7c29iyP011pTX592p55oWofKHBtYMSt8eDJkr220PpVXL-8bg0yA).

Do-not-invent caveats / open items:

• No separate "in-house" counsel for Radian is identified in the public PTAB record.
• I did not find a stand-alone counsel listing filed specifically under docket entry captions for IPR2025-01376 itself (its own Mandatory Notices/POA papers were not returned in my searches); the counsel identification is grounded in the identical team named across the consolidated Radian IPR family and in Xu Zhou's declaration that names ‑01376. If a filing under the ‑01376 docket sheet lists a materially different team, that would supersede this.
• In the parallel district court case, Radian Memory Systems LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-01073-JRG (E.D. Tex.) — where Radian is the plaintiff, not defendant — Radian was represented by Bradley W. Caldwell and Adrienne Roberts Dellinger (Caldwell Cassady & Curry) per VitalLaw's coverage, with Boston's Mintz (which hosted the PI motion, https://www.mintz.com/sites/default/files/media/documents/2025-07-11/Radian_PI Motion_0.pdf) and Longview's Ward, Smith & Hill also reported on Radian's side. That is the mirror-image posture (Radian asserting, Samsung defending), so it is context, not the "defendant" representation at issue in the IPR.

Contradiction flag carried forward: The metadata's party designations (plaintiff = "Unified Patents PTAB Data") conflict with the PTAB record, which shows Samsung as Petitioner and Radian as Patent Owner throughout this IPR family. I have answered based on the substantive PTAB record for the respondent side while noting the metadata label.