Semiconductor devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
143 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 5 · 143 total
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that all 26 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’222 patent are unpatentable as obvious, based on prior art references Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. Monolithic Power Systems prevailed over the patent owner’s arguments on privity and licensing.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that Monolithic Power Systems proved all challenged claims of Greenthread’s 11,316,014 patent obvious over Kawagoe, Onoda and Nishizawa, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully challenged Greenthread’s U.S. Pat. 10,510,842, proving all asserted claims obvious over prior‑art references. The Board affirmed the petition, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that all 22 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’481 patent are obvious over prior art and thus unpatentable. Monolithic Power Systems successfully defended its position, while Greenthread’s privity and licensing arguments were rejected.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's semiconductor patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted the challenge after finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the semiconductor device claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. The Board has instituted the case, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argued that the claimed semiconductor device features were rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda. The Board subsequently instituted the petition for trial.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted the petitioner a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all challenged claims related to solar cell technology. The grounds for obviousness centered on combining prior art references like Jin and Feldmann to achieve predictable improvements in TOPCon structure efficiency.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging claims of Yangtze Memory Technologies' 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (US 10,937,806). The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious under Section 103 in light of prior art from Toyama.
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.
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.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction in a power‑semiconductor patent owned by Monolithic Power Systems. The owner contends the Board’s construction mischaracterizes the claims and that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR on claim 44 of Greenthread’s ’222 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Monolithic Power Systems would prevail, based on obviousness arguments over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems argues that Greenthread’s request for Director Review should be denied because the Board’s interpretation of the claim term “aid” was correct and the arguments have already been rejected in prior proceedings.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a response opposing Greenthread’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that found the ’195 patent claims unpatentable. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied prosecution history and that the request merely repeats arguments already rejected in multiple IPRs.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness finding for its MOSFET doping‑profile patent (U.S. 9,190,502). The petitioner argues the Board misinterpreted functional claim language and ignored district‑court rulings, asserting that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully instituted an IPR against Greenthread’s 8,421,195 patent covering CMOS devices with graded dopant regions, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. initiated an IPR challenging Claim 44 of Greenthread's U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222 under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition asserts that the claimed CMOS semiconductor fabrication structure is obvious based on prior art references including Onoda and Kawagoe.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502 regarding semiconductor device claims (7 and 8) in an IPR proceeding. The Petitioner argues that the claimed graded dopant profiles and electric drift fields are obvious over prior art references like Onoda and Kawagoe. The Board has instituted the case for trial, finding the evidence compelling enough to proceed with the challenge.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenges Greenthread's semiconductor patent (8421195) before the PTAB, asserting that the claimed CMOS device improvements are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references, including Onoda and Kawagoe, to demonstrate a lack of inventive step in creating electric drift fields via graded dopant concentration.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
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.
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.