Skip to content
Spin & Win โ€” Finance โ€” Empowering Your Business Success โ€” Revolutionize Your Business with Symphony Symbiotics

Netlist fights Samsung's patent challenges over undisclosed legal ties

A high-stakes patent battle unfolds as Netlist accuses Samsung of hiding key legal ties. The outcome could reshape how corporations challenge patents.

,   and  Administrator
2 min read
The image shows a patent drawing of a curved line with a curved curve and a straight line...
The image shows a patent drawing of a curved line with a curved curve and a straight line intersecting at the center. The text written on the paper reads "Patent Drawing of a Curved Line".

Netlist has called for the dismissal of two patent challenges filed by Samsung at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The company argues that Samsung failed to properly identify all real parties in interest (RPIs) in its petitions. At the centre of the dispute is whether Samsung Electronics America (SEA) should be named as an RPI due to its legal ties with the parent company.

Netlist's request targets both an inter partes review (IPR) and a post-grant review (PGR) currently underway at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

In its filings, Netlist claims SEA qualifies as an RPI because it shares liability with Samsung in ongoing litigation. The company points to a 2023 PTAB decision (Samsung Electronics Co. v. Netlist, Inc.) where a petition was denied due to undisclosed RPI connections through common legal counsel and prior case coordination.

To support its position, Netlist cites the Aylo Freesites ruling, where the USPTO dismissed an IPR petition over similar RPI disclosure failures. The company also highlights broader concerns about large firms using affiliates to challenge patents held by smaller competitors. Netlist CEO Chuck Hong has stated that stricter RPI enforcement is necessary to prevent such tactics.

Samsung has pushed back, arguing that SEA is merely a purchaser and not an RPI. The company notes that Netlist did not raise RPI arguments about SEA in earlier petitions under the America Invents Act (AIT). Samsung further contends that the USPTO Director already reviewed and rejected Netlist's RPI claims when instituting the current proceedings.

The dispute hinges on how the USPTO defines an RPI under 35 U.S.C. ยง 312(a) and related regulations. Precedents like Taylor v. Sturgell establish that control, financial interest, and the ability to direct proceedings are key factors. These include funding IPRs, shaping legal strategy, or maintaining undisclosed relationships that influence the outcome.

Samsung has now filed responses to Netlist's requests for Director Review of the PTAB trials. The case will test how strictly the USPTO applies RPI disclosure rules in patent disputes between major corporations and smaller patent holders.

The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for how RPIs are identified in future patent challenges. If Netlist succeeds, Samsung's petitions may be dismissed, reinforcing stricter disclosure requirements. If Samsung prevails, the current proceedings will continue, leaving Netlist's patents under review by the PTAB.

Read also:

Related

Latest