Jo-Anne M. Kokoski
90 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
90 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully instituted PGR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding a patent on 3D memory structures. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated obviousness over prior art references Kim and Lee for multiple claims. This moves the dispute into trial phase, raising significant stakes in semiconductor technology licensing.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
The PTAB denied Innoscience's petition to institute IPR against Infineon's 9,899,481 B2 patent covering compound semiconductor power components, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 17 challenged claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Micron Technology against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory device patents. The Board found the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against AbTis Co., Ltd.'s patent (11896675) covering Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness regarding claim 11.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art Costa in 3D memory technology.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Kim, Park, and Fang.
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.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent 11,101,276 B2. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron can prove obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Fang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash memory claims, challenging the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several key claims over prior art (Dong), leading to the institution of the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge a key claim in Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent. The Board granted institution based on obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Nam, advancing the dispute into an active IPR phase.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge by Innoscience America against Infineon Technologies' patent covering semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for several claims over the prior art reference Usui, while also finding merit in the obviousness arguments.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) successfully petitioned to challenge Micron Technology's patent, leading the Board to institute the IPR. The petitioner argued that prior art disclosed or suggested key elements of flash memory technology. This decision allows YMTC to proceed with challenging claims related to semiconductor device structures.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Micron Technology for patent infringement. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite arguments regarding foreign state actor status and RPI issues.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent, securing institution on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found sufficient evidence that combinations of prior art references would render the claims unpatentable.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Innoscience America against Infineon Technologies, challenging 16 claims related to merged cascode transistors. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to challenge key claims in a semiconductor memory patent held by Yangtze Memory Technologies, leading to institution at the PTAB. The Board focused on obviousness (103) over Nakajima, balancing technical merits with parallel litigation factors.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation's IPR challenge against Sebia regarding hemoglobin analysis claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error in the Examiner's rejection, particularly concerning prior art references like Shihabi and Huang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB denied Innoscience America's petition to institute IPR against Infineon Technologies regarding patent 9070755. The Board found that factors favoring discretionary denial, such as overlap with a parallel ITC investigation, outweighed arguments for institution.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petition did not overcome the Fintiv factors, particularly the tight trial schedule. Institution of the IPR remains denied.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting trial on all 10 claims. The grounds centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that specific properties of electrolytic copper foil could be achieved by combining various prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge brought by Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s patent, finding insufficient evidence to support obviousness claims. The Board rejected the petitioner's reliance on hindsight bias when attempting to combine prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis regarding surface roughness claims. The Board found insufficient evidence of motivation to combine prior art references.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.