Two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in September attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case. In this case, Netlist appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review, which invalidated a claim of a Netlist patent. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, Netlist contends that, in prior reexaminations, the PTAB and the patent examiner consistently interpreted the relevant claim language to require “transmission of a command signal to only one DDR memory device at a time when there is a plurality of memory devices in a rank.” That construction, Netlist argues, is based on the claim’s text, the patent’s specification, and extensive prosecution history. Moreover, Netlist points out, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision upholding the claim in the prior reexaminations. Yet, in this inter partes review, it continues, the PTAB adopted a diametrically opposed reading of the claim language, construing “rank” to include a single memory device. But, “[e]ven if sending a command to a single-device ‘rank’ could satisfy” the claim, Netlist argues, the prior art “does not teach single-device ranks.”
In its response brief, Samsung argues “[t]he Board properly assessed the claim language, specification, and prosecution history, as well as extrinsic evidence” to reach the correct construction, which it says “encompasses one or more memory devices.” With regard to the written description, Samsung maintains “Netlist’s focus on other examples of multi-device ranks is perfectly consistent with a ‘one or more’ construction and fails to offer any support for importing a ‘plurality’ limitation.” Furthermore, it argues, “[t]he Board correctly assessed the full language . . . and properly concluded” that in the reexamination the claim at issue was “not construe[d] . . . to require multiple-device ranks.” Thus, it concludes, “[t]he Board’s analysis properly applied this Court’s approach to claim construction and should be affirmed.”
In its reply brief, Netlist argues the “Board cannot flip-flop constructions during a decade of proceedings until it finally arrives at one that renders the patent invalid.” It claims the “Board’s failure of reasoned decisionmaking defies” the Administrative Procedure Act. According to Netlist, the “Board . . . failed to justify reaching a different result here than in the reexaminations.” In conclusion, Netlist urges that the “Board’s decision should be reversed or vacated.”
The case attracted an amicus brief filed by the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs. The USIJ supports the appellant and reversal. USIJ, a “coalition of startup companies, inventors, investors, and entrepreneurs whose businesses depend upon stable and reliable patent protection,” argues the Board’s decision, unless reversed by the Federal Circuit, “will take its place as a ‘high-water mark’ for the glaring injustice wrought by the creation of [the Board] and its administration by the USPTO.” USIJ suggests the patent system’s quid pro quo of statutory exclusivity in exchange for the disclosure of information is undermined by IPR procedures, such as the one in this case, which, it says, allow “infringers,” particularly large foreign digital technology companies, “to drag out proceedings and continue to profit from their infringement.”
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, September 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 402.