US PTAB IP Litigation

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their IPR dispute over a RF connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.

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

Micron's request for Director Review of IPR2024-00794 was dismissed after Yangtze Memory appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision, leaving the Board without jurisdiction.

patent · Dec 4, 2024

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

patent terminated or settled · Dec 4, 2024

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.

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the IPR petition, effectively ending the dispute over patent 11,385,415.

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

patent terminated or settled · Dec 4, 2024

Micron's request for director review of the PTAB's decision on its 3D NAND patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to meet the burden of proving obviousness or motivation to combine prior art references.

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,385,415 and jointly moved to withdraw the IPR, seeking full termination of the proceeding.

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

The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory Technologies’ patent 10,950,623. The order affirms that the Director will not intervene.

patent · Dec 4, 2024

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components argues that Conec’s narrow claim constructions for its fiber‑optic adapter patent conflict with its own ITC testimony, urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.

patent · Dec 4, 2024

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

Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00808

Apple Inc. initiated a Petition challenging Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (9941830) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combining prior art references like Wakuda and Ramsay renders the claimed linear vibration modules predictable to a POSITA.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00807

Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00806

Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, asserting that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on Linear Resonant Actuators (LRA) and vibration generation technology, utilizing multiple prior art combinations to demonstrate unpatentability.

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.

Petitioner Senko Advanced Components challenges U.S. Conec's patent (11385415) in a Petition, asserting that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to optical connectors and adapters.

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

Micron Technology, Inc. initiated an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s 3D NAND patent (10950623). The PTAB has instituted the proceedings based on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Park and Shibata.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00697

Apple Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8093767) regarding vibration modules and haptics. The Petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 103.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00698

Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent on Linear Resonant Vibration Modules (LRVMs) at the PTAB. The petition asserts that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00808

The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute a parallel Inter Partes Review against Resonant Systems, Inc., finding that the existing IPR proceeding was sufficient despite arguments regarding priority date disputes.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00807

Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8860337). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'driving' and 'control components,' setting the stage for a trial focused on obviousness over prior art combinations.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00806

Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, leading to a decision that found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board adopted key claim constructions and accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references.

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

Micron Technology successfully secured institution in this IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Park et al., despite the Patent Owner's challenges to key claim terms like 'trenches.'

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00698

Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board issued key claim constructions, defining 'driving component' as means-plus-function while confirming 'control component' is structurally defined.