Data storage — US PTAB Patent Cases
57 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 57 total
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Director Review requests were issued for IPR2024-01493 and IPR2024-01494, limiting petitioner responses to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital petitions the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of a MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over known MTJ teachings. The petition cites Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, Parkin and Soukup as prior art and challenges discretionary denial.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION's petition challenging Vervain, LLC's NAND Flash Memory patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found the specification sufficiently supported the claims against indefiniteness and written description challenges, and Petitioner failed to meet the likelihood standard for obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01433, leaving Cyandia's patent 8,751,948 B2 instituted.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital seeks a Director Review to overturn an IPR finding that its MTJ memory patent is obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misapplied the APA, misread prior‑art references, and erred on expectation‑of‑success analysis.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital's data‑storage patent, leaving the institution decisions intact.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR against a magnetic tunnel junction patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director review to vacate the institution, arguing that piecemeal review of one of nine related patents is inefficient and contrary to AIA policy.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01447. The company contends the request lacks any showing of error or abuse of discretion and should be denied.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all four claims of U.S. Patent 8,405,134, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, and Parkin, and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,123,463 covering MRAM technology, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608. The Board terminated the proceeding without deciding the merits, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all four claims of Godo Kaisha’s MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
The PTAB denied the petition challenging a NAND Flash Memory System patent based on grounds including 101, 112, and 103. The Board found that the claims were directed toward a technological improvement in memory storage and adequately supported by the specification.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,160,466. The Board terminated the proceeding without a merits decision, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra filed a joint request to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and to dismiss the pending IPR. The motion cites statutory confidentiality protections.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the case, and the parties cite judicial economy for the termination.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR before institution.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over Patent 7,233,978 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and data‑storage startup Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain's 11,854,612 patent covering mixed‑level NAND flash memory, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim to be unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00777, leaving the institution of Maxell's patent 11,017,815 B2 in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's request for a Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s ’612 NAND‑flash memory patent, finding the challenger’s unpatentability arguments unpersuasive.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (11146632) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are unpatentable over prior art. The petition asserts that the patented technology is anticipated or obvious by the Agarwala reference and related knowledge of a POSITA.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox, Inc., the petitioner, challenges Motion Offense LLC's patent (US 11611520) in an IPR proceeding. The core argument is that the claimed cloud storage and file transfer methods are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Riepling, Manzano, Meisels, and Garcia.
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.