US PTAB IP Litigation

The PTAB denied Micron's petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory's patent 11,468,957. The Board’s original findings remain in effect.

patent · Apr 29, 2024

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

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.

patent · Apr 29, 2024

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

patent null · Apr 29, 2024

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.

Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC

· IPR2024-00858

Trove Brands has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,905,252 held by Camelbak Products, LLC, concerning drink container cap assemblies. The petition asserts multiple grounds of unpatentability, primarily relying on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Trove Brands utilizes various prior art references, including Samartgis, Leoncavallo, Miller, Gorskey, and Johnson.

patent null · Apr 29, 2024

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

patent instituted · Apr 29, 2024

Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash Memory operation claims, challenging the patent's validity under 102 and 103. The petition argues that the claimed features are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references.

New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2024-00778

New Balance Athletics successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Nike's footwear patent, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings. The petition asserts that numerous claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Clark and Mills.

patent instituted · Apr 29, 2024

Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC

· IPR2024-00858

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Trove Brands against CamelBak's patent 8905252, finding that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability over Samartgis and Leoncavallo.

patent instituted · Apr 29, 2024

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

patent denied · Apr 29, 2024

Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims related to 3D-NAND memory operation, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its challenges regarding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references.

New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2024-00778

New Balance Athletics' IPR challenge against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments of anticipation and obviousness, particularly regarding claim scope limitations like 'article of footwear.'

patent final · Apr 29, 2024

Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC

· IPR2024-00858

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability for claims 5-7 and 16-19. The Board found that the prior art references failed to teach or suggest the claimed 'closure retention mechanism' with sufficient structural identity.

patent final · Apr 29, 2024

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

patent terminated or settled · Apr 26, 2024

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's arguments that claims 1-6 of patent 11468957 were unpatentable. The Board found the anticipation argument failed because Suzuki did not disclose a distinct 'pre-verify stage,' and obviousness arguments failed due to insufficient establishment of required elements over prior art combinations.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00854

Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,478,030. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 26, 2024

Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,

· IPR2024-00852

Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under statutory confidentiality rules.

Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,

· IPR2024-00852

Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,362,480 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and lack of a preliminary response as reasons for dismissal.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00841

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review covering DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring patent (U.S. 10,709,364). The Board has not yet decided the merits, satisfying the statutory requirements for termination under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00854

Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.

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

Samsung challenges Maxell’s touch‑screen registration patent, defending the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness findings while urging the Director to deny the review request as untimely.

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

Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its touchscreen‑gesture patent after Samsung’s challenge. The owner contends the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework under §325(d), improperly shifting burdens and ignoring prior reexamination findings.

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

Maxell seeks director review of a PTAB final written decision that found all challenged claims of its fingerprint‑registration patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board’s claim construction and obviousness analysis are erroneous and that the IPR should never have been instituted under §325(d).

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