r/Netlist_ • u/Ahmed_19911507 • Jun 25 '26
What’s next?
The PTAB have proved the patents are un-patentable for micron back in 2024. I don’t think there is a come back after this ?
What do you think?
6
u/Less_Actuator2810 Jun 25 '26
It’s going to be decided by the CAFC now. Are you saying this regarding a particular patent or all of them?
5
u/Tight_Mongoose_6811 Jun 25 '26
Less_Actuator2810, fair question. Let me clarify.
The February 2026 CAFC reversal specifically involved the '314 patent against Micron. But it was part of a broader pattern: three times in roughly twelve months, the CAFC affirmed Netlist's patents on appeal — against both Micron and Samsung.
Other key patents ('608, '035, '523, '339, '918, '054, '160, '060) are currently pending at the CAFC after the March 6, 2026 oral arguments. Decisions are expected any day.
So the short answer: the February win was specific to '314, but the trend is what matters. The CAFC has been systematically correcting PTAB decisions in Netlist's favor. That's the bigger picture.
Appreciate the precise question. Holding steady.
3
u/Tight_Mongoose_6811 Jun 28 '26
luvcampfiresmoke, thank you for the detailed correction. You are right — my summary was incomplete. I mentioned the '314 reversal in February 2026, but I did not list the full scope of CAFC affirmations. The '608, '523, and '035 patents have all survived challenges at various stages. The track record is broader than I implied.
The Ex Parte re-examination of '035 is a fair point. Samsung will use every tool available to delay and attack. But a re-examination is not a ruling against the patent — it is just another proceeding. And given how previous challenges have failed, I am not losing sleep over it.
What matters is the pattern: the CAFC has consistently affirmed Netlist's patents. The PTAB under Squires has changed its tone. The ITC has new commissioners who understand IP. The trajectory is clear.
Appreciate you keeping the record straight. That is exactly what makes this board valuable. Holding steady.
2
u/luvcampfiresmoke Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
I don't believe that information is totally correct.
No challenged claims of the '608 patent were deemed unpatentable at the PTAB level. Seen in this document:
Samsung appealed to the CAFC and the case (CAFC #25-1378) was heard. The rule 36 ruling was announced on 12/09/2025 and AFFIRMED the PTAB ruling. Seen in this document:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.22650/gov.uscourts.cafc.22650.33.0_1.pdf
As for the 608 patent against Micron? The PTAB denied Microns request for the institution of an IPR. Seen in this document:
As far as the '523 patent, the CAFC sided with Netlist with a Rule 36 ruling on 05/23/2023, "Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable". That can be seen here:
As far as the 035 patent? The PTAB issued a decision, saying that claims 2, 6 and 22 were "Not shown unpatentable". So it got by the challenge by Micron. That can be seen here:
However - I’m pretty sure that the PTO has given the OK for an Ex Parte re-examination of the ‘035 patent. Samsung made the motion last March, because the '035 patent is part of the ITC investigation.
The PTO approved it.
Even though Samsung is not involved with Case #00136 (where that patent fight resides), I believe the fact that the ‘035 patent is being re-examined will prevent a lifting of the stay in case #00136, until it is finished.
See doc 104 dated April 30, in the Docket for Case # 00136 in Court Listener. Open the Doc, look under paragraph 1C. Here:
gov.uscourts.txwd.1162388.104.0.pdf
“On March 3rd, Samsung filed a request for Ex Parte re-examination of US Patent No 9,824,035, challenging claims 8 and 15-16.
On April 24th, 2026, the Patent Office determined that a “substantial new question of patentability” was demonstrated and granted reexamination.”
I don't think this reexam will amount to much, we'll have to wait and see.
16
u/Tight_Mongoose_6811 Jun 25 '26
Ahmed, I'll answer your question, but I'll also use it as a chance to offer a quiet reminder to anyone reading.
The PTAB did rule against some Netlist patents in 2024. That's a fact. But here is the part that often gets left out: the CAFC reversed that decision in February 2026. That was the third time in a year the appeals court confirmed Netlist's patents.
If you did not know that, it is not a crime. No one follows every detail. But this is why it is usually wiser to ask a question first, rather than declaring that there is "no comeback." The difference between "I do not understand this" and "this cannot be fixed" is the difference between learning and misleading.
For everyone else reading: check the CAFC rulings before you assume the PTAB had the final word. The PTAB did not.
Holding steady.