Michael T. Cygan
82 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
82 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s IPR against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of claim 10 of Micron’s challenged 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the Toyama reference.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron successfully established the unpatentability of five claims (15, 16, 17, 19, and 20) over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala. The Board found that various embodiments in the prior art taught all limitations of the challenged claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1–6 and 11–13 unpatentable over Tessariol, while finding them patentable over Park. The Board's decision hinged on claim construction, specifically defining 'dummy source structure' as one that does not function as a source to memory cells. This outcome significantly impacts the validity of the asserted claims in 3D Memory Devices (NAND).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1-3 unpatentable over Kim due to obviousness (103), while claims 4 and 5 were found patentable. The Board construed the key term 'surrounding' as meaning 'all around' or 'encircling.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's challenge to four claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish obviousness over prior art references, specifically Toyama.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
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.
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.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted the District Court's construction of 'mirror tracking mode,' which requires the user to see a reversed reflection at roughly double the distance while maintaining constant size. This decision involved complex obviousness arguments regarding adaptive transformation mapping.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,806 was not unpatentable over Toyama. The challenge failed because the Petitioner could not demonstrate obviousness for its base independent claim 8.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1-7 and 18 unpatentable over the prior art reference Toyama under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued a Final Written Decision after addressing several key claim construction disputes regarding isolation regions, dielectric structures, and local contacts.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that all 18 challenged claims of EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'mirror tracking mode,' which was central to finding obviousness across multiple grounds.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB upheld all claims of the patent in this final written decision after rejecting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'mirror-mimicking' and 'varying rate,' finding the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found sufficient evidence for unpatentability under both §102 and §103 over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision regarding obviousness over Kim and Tessariol. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'surrounding' as 'encircling,' finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron will prevail against the patent.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board adopted a narrow construction of 'dummy source structure,' finding that the Petitioner met its burden for obviousness over Tessariol and Park. This paves the way for further litigation against the patent owner.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology challenged YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY over its 3D NAND Memory technology in an IPR proceeding. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness based on prior art, moving the case into trial preparation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
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.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash patents, finding insufficient evidence to prove obviousness over the cited prior art (Seo and Choi).
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.
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.
Micron Technology, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s semiconductor patent was obvious over prior art reference Toyama et al., leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 8 claims at issue based on structural limitations taught by the prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND flash technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments concerning claim scope, specifically finding that 'dummy source structure' must not function as a memory cell source.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's request for rehearing of the institution denial in its IPR against Yangtze Memory was denied by the PTAB. The Board upheld its construction of key terms, finding no abuse of discretion.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology failed to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent on obviousness grounds in a PTAB IPR decision. The Board found that the petitioner could not demonstrate that combining prior art teachings would render the claimed 3D Flash memory invention obvious.
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.