PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11740801, which was terminated due to settlement. This means the patent's claims remain untested by a Final Written Decision, giving a defendant less clarity on their patentability.

IPR2025-01350 — [[[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: 2025-07-28
• Status: Terminated-Settled. The proceeding concluded before a final decision was reached due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available at this stage.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from the provided data.
• Institution decision: Not publicly available from the provided data.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-01-09 due to a settlement between Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. and Radian Memory Systems LLC. The terms of the settlement are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: Since this IPR settled before an institution decision or a Final Written Decision, the patentability of the claims of US11740801 has not been formally tested and affirmed or invalidated by the PTAB. This means any infringement theory is not yet hardened by PTAB review, but also no claims have been canceled.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US patent 11740801 has not had any claims canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision in an AIA trial proceeding. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01350, was terminated due to a settlement between the petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., and the patent owner, Radian Memory Systems LLC. Consequently, all claims of US11740801 remain untested by PTAB review.

The estoppel landscape is also largely undefined. Since IPR2025-01350 settled prior to institution or a Final Written Decision, the statutory estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(2) are unlikely to apply to the petitioner or its privies for any grounds that could have been raised. This means that, in theory, a new IPR could be filed by the same or a different entity challenging the same claims on the same prior art, though the settlement itself may contain confidential clauses that could impact future challenges.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner. The involvement of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as a petitioner in the terminated IPR suggests that the patent may be asserted against larger entities in the tech industry.

Recommended next steps

Given that the single IPR on file for US11740801 was terminated due to settlement and no claims have been invalidated or sustained, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should be aware that the patent's claims have not been substantively vetted by the PTAB.

For a defendant, this means:

• Absence of claim cancellation: No claims have been officially canceled, so all claims of US11740801 are theoretically available for assertion by the patent owner.
• Open prior art grounds: The prior art grounds that could have been raised in IPR2025-01350 are likely still available for a new challenge, subject to any confidential settlement agreements.
• Consider a new IPR: The absence of an FWD means a new IPR could be a viable strategy to challenge the patentability of the claims, especially if strong prior art exists that was not fully litigated or ruled upon in the terminated proceeding.

There are no active proceedings pending, nor any upcoming trial-stage milestones to note. The fact that the initial IPR settled is a signal that parties may prefer private resolution, but it does not definitively speak to the strength or weakness of the patent claims themselves.