US PTAB IP Litigation

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00794

Micron seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision upholding claims 2‑5 and 7‑11 of its 3D NAND patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards, especially regarding the Park and Shibata references. A reversal could invalidate the Board’s findings and affect Micron’s memory‑technology portfolio.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00792

Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that held claims 1‑6 of its 3D‑NAND memory patent unpatentable. The petition argues the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and misapplied the non‑obviousness analysis to prior art references Hongtao and Seo.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00792

Micron’s request for Director Review challenges the PTAB’s rejection of its obviousness arguments against Yangtze Memory’s NAND flash verification patent. The Board found Micron’s evidence insufficient and its arguments conclusory, leading to a denial of the review request.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

· IPR2024-00839

The USPTO Director denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 10,901,191 and 11,448,863.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

A joint notice confirms the final written decision in IPR2024-00919 contains no confidential information.

WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2024-00864

Certificate of service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00864 concerning patent 11,663,032.

Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00898

Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 concerning patent 10,981,350. The parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00790

Micron’s request for Director Review of IPR2024-00790 was denied after the Patent Owner filed a Notice of Appeal, which stripped the PTAB of jurisdiction. The Board cited In re Graves in reaching its decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC

· IPR2024-00897

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Empire Technology’s patent was denied. The Board, led by Judge Ankenbrand, found the petition did not meet the required standards.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00828

Maxell has filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s fingerprint‑recognition patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards.

Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,

· IPR2024-00852

Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,362,480, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.

WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2024-00863

The USPTO denied WIZ, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in IPR2024-00863 and a related IPR, upholding the decisions against Orca Security's patent.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.

· IPR2024-00791

Micron Technology petitions the PTAB Director to review a final written decision that upheld Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND flash patent claims. Micron contends the Board erred on obviousness grounds by demanding bodily incorporation, ignoring reply‑stage evidence, and misapplying anticipation standards. The request seeks reversal or vacatur of the decision.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00790

Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claim 4 of its 3‑D NAND patent remains unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness law, ignoring KSR precedent and the known‑substitute teaching of Kim and Tessariol.

WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2024-00863

Certificate of Service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00863 concerning patent 11,663,031.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2024-00856

Google, Samsung, and Microsoft settled their IPR challenge to EyesMatch’s ’109 patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement.

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2024-00812

NeoGenomics and Natera have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks limited disclosure and asserts no filing fee is due.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00853

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking Section 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the public patent file.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00853

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over DexCom’s glucose‑monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00890

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,020,031 B1. The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2024-00810

Google successfully opposed EyesMatch’s Director Review request, arguing consistent position and lack of procedural error. The Board denied the request, leaving the patent’s claims unaltered.

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2024-00812

NeoGenomics and Natera have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,519,035 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC

· IPR2024-00896

Empire Technology has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00896. Samsung has five business days to submit a limited response, with no new evidence allowed.