PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on US patent 11544183, which has been terminated due to settlement. This offers a defendant limited immediate clarity regarding claim validity through PTAB, as no claims were formally invalidated or sustained by a Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-01266 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Radian Memory Systems LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-09
• Status: Terminated-Settled – The proceeding concluded due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the provided snippets. Given the nature of an IPR, it would typically involve challenges under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 based on patents and printed publications.
• Institution decision: Not applicable as the case settled before a formal institution decision would have been issued or made public.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated as settled on 2026-01-09. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Radian Memory Systems LLC reached a settlement. While it doesn't provide a judicial determination on the validity of any claims of US11544183, the termination via settlement suggests that the parties resolved their dispute outside of a full PTAB trial. For a new defendant, the claims remain untested by PTAB scrutiny, meaning the full range of prior art grounds under §§ 102 and 103 might still be available for a new IPR petition.

Strategic summary

The PTAB record for US patent 11544183 shows one Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01266, which was initiated by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. and subsequently terminated due to settlement on 2026-01-09. As a result, no claims of US11544183 have been formally canceled or sustained by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. All claims of the patent remain untested in an AIA trial context.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01266 is specific to the petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., and their privies. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), they would be barred from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised during this IPR. However, for a new defendant facing assertion of this patent, this settlement does not create estoppel, and all prior-art grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are still available for a potential IPR petition. The patent owner, Radian Memory Systems LLC, was involved in this proceeding, and the settlement suggests they preferred to resolve the matter rather than pursuing a full IPR trial. Unified Patents was mentioned as a petitioner in relation to this IPR case in the initial Google Patents data, but the "PTAB proceedings on file" section explicitly lists "Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al." as the petitioner, which is the authoritative source for this task.

Recommended next steps

Given that IPR2025-01266 was terminated via settlement and no claims were invalidated, the patent claims of US11544183 remain patentable as far as the PTAB is concerned.

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, all claims (Claim 1, Claim 11, Claim 16, and their dependent claims) are currently considered valid by the USPTO. Any infringement theory built on these claims is still viable from a patent validity standpoint, as they have not been challenged to a final decision at the PTAB.
• Consider a new IPR petition if asserting entity is not Samsung or their privies, as the claims have not been substantively reviewed by the PTAB. The absence of a Final Written Decision means a new defendant is not estopped from raising prior art grounds.
• Perform a thorough prior art search, focusing on the cooperative memory management and bad block remapping aspects, to identify strong grounds for a new IPR petition if desired. This could potentially target independent claims 1, 11, and 16.