Data storage — US PTAB Patent Cases
57 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 57 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian's 11,544,183 patent covering flash memory controllers. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks review of 14 claims.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Exhibit 1042 presents aggregate PTAB IPR statistics for hard‑disk patents, noting a 100% institution rate across 4,148 trials. Twenty percent of those trials produced mixed claim findings, while the majority favored the petitioner.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Exhibit 1042 provides statistical insight into PTAB trial outcomes for hard‑disk patents, highlighting a high institution rate and a strong petitioner win record across §102 and §103 grounds.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
An exhibit summarizing PTAB IPR outcomes shows that all 4,148 trials were instituted, with 20% yielding mixed claim findings under §103, and 24% under §102 for a subset of 1,190 trials.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Resonac has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of MR Technologies' 9,928,864 patent covering multilayer perpendicular magnetic recording media, asserting that the claims are obvious over Takenoiri and other prior art.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Resonac has filed an IPR petition against MR Technologies' 12,020,734 patent covering perpendicular magnetic recording media, asserting that the claims are obvious over Takenoiri, Fullerton, and Shen references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’801 patent covering SSD metadata and maintenance functions. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’772 SSD management patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the claims covering zone‑based flash memory techniques.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Radian's ’614 SSD storage patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. §311.
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR petition challenging a magnetic tunnel junction patent was denied, as the Board found the obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were instituted for review.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Palisade's ’051 memory‑card patent, asserting obviousness over Diggs, Lin, and Thorsten references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and outlines four grounds of unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory Systems’ ’995 patent covering flash‑memory address translation. The petition relies on Reiter, SCSI standards, Sinclair‑367 and Yamada to argue obviousness of 23 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian’s ’657 patent covering flash memory address translation, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art flash controllers and SCSI standards.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Radian’s ’656 flash‑memory controller patent, asserting obviousness over Reiter, SCSI standards and other prior art. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Polaris PowerLED’s ’346 patent, asserting that its parity‑generation claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claimed on‑the‑fly techniques and command distribution were well‑known and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00519, requesting the settlement be treated as business confidential information.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284. They jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of its mixed‑level NAND flash memory patent, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash patent. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract, lack written description, are indefinite, and are obvious over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Truesight’s virtual SD‑card patent was denied by the PTAB, which exercised its discretion under § 314(a) after weighing the six Fintiv factors and finding the parallel district‑court litigation outweighed the petition’s merits.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's request for post‑grant review of claims 1‑6 of U.S. Patent 11,854,612, finding the petitioner failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the ‘more likely than not’ burden. The Board upheld the patent’s claims across all seven challenged claims.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR in the Tessell v. Nutanix case, citing administrative inefficiency because the petitioner includes nearly all inventors of the challenged patent.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s 11,830,546 patent covering a mixed‑level NAND flash storage system. The Board found Phison’s evidence insufficient to meet the “more likely than not” standard for any of the asserted grounds. No institution was ordered.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request to institute IPR against Vervain, LLC's patent 8,891,298. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, primarily due to significant overlap with ongoing parallel district court litigation.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny IP Bridge’s Director Review request. The brief argues that IP Bridge ignored Board guidance and provides no basis for vacating the institution decisions.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital files an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s Director Review request, asserting the request lacks merit and that the PTAB’s institution decisions should stand.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital requests the PTAB Director to vacate institution of an IPR on a hard‑disk‑drive MTJ patent, arguing that the case should be resolved in the pending district‑court litigation.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.