Judge Profile

Michael T. Cygan

82 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

82 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3

patent instituted · Apr 30, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00788

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.

patent Final Written Decision · Apr 30, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00788

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.

patent instituted · Apr 29, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00792

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.

patent final · Apr 29, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00792

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.

patent denied · Apr 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00793

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).

patent denied · Apr 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00793

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.

patent instituted · Apr 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00789

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.

patent instituted · Apr 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00790

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.

patent Final Written Decision · Apr 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00790

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.'

patent final · Apr 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00789

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).

patent terminated or settled · Mar 20, 2024

DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00708

Dell and AX Wireless settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,212,146. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024

DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00686

Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024

DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00685

Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before they were instituted. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024

DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00680

Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings covering wireless patents. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024

DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00682

Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024

DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00684

Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR challenging patent 10,291,449 B2, before any trial was instituted.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024

DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00683

Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings covering wireless patents. The Board granted termination motions and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024

DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00681

Dell and AX Wireless settled eight IPRs before they were instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreements confidential.

patent instituted · Mar 5, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00791

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.

patent Final Written Decision · Mar 5, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00791

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.

patent instituted · Feb 12, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00191

Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 9, 2024

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01299

Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →