Share This Page
Litigation Details for Netlist, Inc. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (E.D. Tex. 2021)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Netlist, Inc. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (E.D. Tex. 2021)
| Docket | ⤷ Start Trial | Date Filed | 2021-12-20 |
| Court | District Court, E.D. Texas | Date Terminated | 2023-08-11 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | James Rodney Gilstrap |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | |
| Patents | 10,183,003; 11,040,042; 12,016,873 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Netlist, Inc. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
Details for Netlist, Inc. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (E.D. Tex. 2021)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-12-20 | External link to document | |||
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
Litigation summary and analysis for: Netlist, Inc. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (E.D. Tex. 2021)
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (2:21-cv-00463): Litigation Summary, Claims at Issue, and Exposure Timeline
Executive summary: The case Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00463, is a US patent infringement action tied to Netlist’s memory-related IP. The core enforcement posture is standard for Netlist’s portfolio: Samsung’s DRAM and/or SSD memory products are alleged to practice claimed architectures, system interfaces, and/or defect-avoidance mechanisms in ways that infringe Netlist patents. The business risk profile is driven by (1) which specific Netlist patents are asserted in the operative complaint and through claim construction, (2) whether Samsung has narrowed non-infringement defenses through design changes, and (3) procedural posture (motions to dismiss, transfer, stay, summary judgment, and any PTAB activity that can affect scope or leverage).
Critical detail needed to produce an accurate, claim-level litigation summary and analysis is not provided in the prompt. Without the operative complaint/patents list, docket dispositions, and any claim construction or settlement/judgment filings, a complete and accurate summary cannot be generated under the constraints.
What is the lawsuit timeline for Netlist v. Samsung Electronics (2:21-cv-00463)?
No verifiable timeline data is included in the input. A litigation timeline normally requires at minimum: filing date, assigned court, complaint date, service, claim chart milestones, Markman schedule, infringement contentions, validity contentions, PTAB filings (if any), and dispositive motion outcomes. Without docket events, dates, and dispositions, a factual timeline cannot be completed.
Which Netlist patents are asserted in 2:21-cv-00463, and what claims are targeted?
A patent-litigation summary must identify:
- asserted patent numbers,
- asserted claims (claim subsets),
- product categories (e.g., DDR4/DDR5, LPDDR, e.MMC/eMMC, SSD/NAND controllers),
- and the accused features mapped to claim elements.
The prompt does not provide the asserted-patent list or the asserted-claims scope. Without those, any claim-by-claim analysis would be non-actionable and could be inaccurate.
What is the procedural posture in Netlist v. Samsung (motions, Markman, summary judgment)?
A usable litigation analysis requires the procedural record:
- motions to dismiss (12(b)(6), venue, personal jurisdiction, standing),
- transfer or consolidation,
- Markman (claim construction) orders,
- schedule changes,
- summary judgment filings,
- and whether any claims were dropped or narrowed.
The prompt provides only the case caption and number. No docket outcomes are included, so procedural posture cannot be stated factually.
How do claim construction rulings affect infringement and validity in Netlist v. Samsung?
Claim construction outcomes often control case value. A proper analysis needs:
- Markman ruling citations,
- construed claim terms,
- and how those constructions map to Samsung’s defenses and Netlist’s infringement theory.
No claim construction information is provided.
What defenses has Samsung raised in 2:21-cv-00463 (non-infringement, invalidity, indefiniteness)?
Standard defenses include non-infringement, anticipation/obviousness, indefiniteness, written description, enablement, and prosecution-history estoppel. To analyze which defenses matter, the record must specify:
- the asserted invalidity grounds and the prior art references,
- whether Samsung challenged claim definiteness or priority,
- and whether Samsung disputed claim-element coverage for each accused product.
No defense briefing or content is included.
Is there PTAB activity tied to Netlist’s patents in this case, and what is its impact?
Portfolio-based memory patent litigations often run parallel PTAB IPR proceedings. An analysis must identify:
- whether any asserted patents are under inter partes review,
- institution outcomes (granted/denied),
- which claims are challenged,
- and PTAB timelines that can trigger estoppel or settlement pressure.
No PTAB docket references are provided.
What is the damages exposure range for Samsung if Netlist prevails in 2:21-cv-00463?
Damages analysis depends on:
- royalty base (units/systems),
- apportionment and nexus findings,
- Netlist’s patent portfolio licensing practices (if relevant to the record),
- and whether willfulness, enhanced damages, or design-around facts exist.
Without operative claim scope, accused product features, and any damages filings, a quantified exposure range cannot be produced.
Did Netlist and Samsung settle, and what does the settlement say about ongoing supply or design changes?
Settlement analysis requires:
- whether a final consent judgment or dismissal occurred,
- terms (typically confidential but sometimes partially disclosed through docket entries),
- whether design changes were required,
- and whether there were stipulations covering future products.
No settlement or termination information is provided.
What is the status of any injunction request in Netlist v. Samsung (temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction)?
Injunction status depends on:
- whether a preliminary injunction was sought,
- whether the court granted or denied it,
- and any bond or accounting provisions.
No injunction-related docket entries are included.
What does this case mean for Samsung’s broader memory product roadmap and IP clearance?
This requires mapping the case outcome to:
- asserted technology types (DRAM refresh, redundancy, error correction, memory controllers, redundancy mapping),
- design-around feasibility,
- and whether the asserted patents constrain DDR/LPDDR/SSD lines across generations.
No patent-technology identification is provided.
How strong is Netlist’s patent estate relative to Samsung’s technical arguments?
Patent strength analysis is claim- and prior-art-specific. A proper evaluation uses:
- the claim scope compared to the prior art cited in invalidity contentions,
- prosecution history,
- likelihood of surviving dispositive motions,
- and any prior enforcement or licensing outcomes tied to the same patents.
The necessary patent and briefing details are not included.
Key Takeaways
- Case number and parties alone are insufficient to produce a factual litigation summary or business-grade analysis of Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (2:21-cv-00463).
- A complete analysis requires the operative asserted patents/claims and docket dispositions (motions, Markman, and any judgment/settlement orders).
- Without those inputs, any “litigation summary” would risk incorrect assertions about what was decided, by whom, and on what legal grounds.
FAQs
1) What court and judge is assigned to Netlist v. Samsung (2:21-cv-00463)?
Not provided.
2) Which Samsung products are accused in Netlist v. Samsung (2:21-cv-00463)?
Not provided.
3) Are any patents asserted under Section 271(b) or 271(c) in this case?
Not provided.
4) Has Samsung challenged the asserted patents in PTAB proceedings connected to this litigation?
Not provided.
5) What is the most recent docket event in 2:21-cv-00463?
Not provided.
References
(APA) No sources were provided or cited in the prompt.
More… ↓
