Invalidity dossier
US 9928186
Flash-DRAM hybrid memory module
Current assignee: Netlist Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 11:08:59 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 9,928,186 B2
Title: Flash-DRAM hybrid memory module
Patent number: US9928186B2 | Application: US14/840,865 | Publication: US20160196223A1
Inventor(s): Hyun Lee, Chi-She Chen, Jeffrey C. Solomon, Scott H. Milton, Jayesh Bhakta
Assignee: Netlist Inc (original and current assignee per the source)
Key dates (as listed):
- Priority date: 2007-06-01
- Filing date: 2015-08-31
- Publication date: 2018-03-27 (grant)
- Status: Active; anticipated expiration 2028-06-02
Purpose / plain-language scope (from the supplied text):
The title and classifications indicate a memory module combining flash (non-volatile) and DRAM (volatile) storage. Classifications place it in: hybrid storage combining heterogeneous device types (G06F3/0685); memory management in block-erasable flash memory (G06F12/0246); volatile/non-volatile cells for backup when power is down, where the volatile element is a DRAM cell (G11C14/0009); combination of memories such as ROM and RAM in one module (G06F12/0638); and memory controller configuration for different memory types (G06F13/1694). Listed prior-art keywords are controller, subsystem, memory, data, command.
Continuity (as listed): Priority claimed from US12/240,916; later filings claim priority to this application (US15/934,416, US17/138,766, US17/328,019, US17/582,797, and US19/261,245, US19/412,697).
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9928186/en
What the excerpt does not establish:
The excerpt contains no claim text, no written description, no abstract, and no drawing descriptions, so the specific claimed scope and operation of the module cannot be stated. It does not establish ownership transfers, litigation outcomes, validity, or the content of any prior-art reference. The Google Patents listing states that legal status and assignee data are assumptions, not legal conclusions, and that the priority date is an assumption. Per the operating rules, the excerpt's litigation and reassignment entries are not examined here.
(Word count: ~290)
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:54:02 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9928186. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.