Semiconductor memory — US PTAB Patent Cases
103 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 4 · 103 total
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior‑art references that disclose low‑voltage operation and embedded display‑port use.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 10,998,017), asserting that claims 1‑2 are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art DRAM disclosures and that the input/output unit is a §112(f) means‑plus‑function term.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 12,154,652), seeking to invalidate claims 1‑6 on anticipation and obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 10,475,737 flash‑memory patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1,10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s 9,824,035 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while claims 2,6, and 22 remain valid.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,524,974 covering NAND flash memory structures, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds targeting all challenged claims.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to dismiss an IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240 covering NAND flash memory after settling their dispute. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek termination under statutory settlement provisions.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Longitude Flash’s 2018 SONOS memory patent, seeking cancellation of 15 claims on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on Lee ’255, Lee ’961, Fujiwara, and Hwang as prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2017‑00549, finding that Samsung Electronics successfully invalidated ten claims of Netlist’s ’364 memory‑module patent as obvious over the Halbert and Amidi references. All challenged claims were held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that most of the claims of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry reference (and its combinations), cancelling 63 of 65 challenged claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived. Samsung emerged as the prevailing challenger.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MOSAID’s ’028 patent covering configurable clock modes in non‑volatile memory, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of MOSAID’s ’381 flash memory patent, asserting obviousness over the Grundy and Kilbuck references. The petition includes a detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis and an expert declaration.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 18‑23, 39‑44, and 56‑60 of Netlist’s ’537 patent are obvious over the Amidi and Klein references, rendering all 17 challenged claims unpatentable. The decision follows an institution on the same claims and denies the patent owner’s motions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's petition for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions intact. The Director recused herself, and authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision in Netlist’s DRAM patent (U.S. 7,619,912). The Director recused, and Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent denied the request, leaving the PTAB’s final written decision intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In an IPR, the PTAB held that Samsung's challenge to Netlist's ’833 patent succeeded, finding all 28 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Best, Bonella, and Mills references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of Netlist’s ’833 hybrid memory patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Best, Bonella, and Mills. Samsung, as petitioner, prevailed on both claim construction and obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that SK Hynix’s IPR against Netlist’s ’537 patent succeeded; all challenged claims were found obvious over Amidi and Klein references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s final written decisions in two Netlist IPRs. Because the Director was recused, authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent, who affirmed the PTAB decisions as final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 34 claims of Netlist’s 8,787,060 B2 memory‑package patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 18‑23, 39‑44, and 56‑60 of Netlist’s ’537 patent are obvious over the Amidi and Klein references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable.
SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC
SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceedings and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01289 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public policy and efficiency reasons for early termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of PTAB decisions upholding Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegated authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of Samsung’s asserted claims of Netlist’s ’833 patent unpatentable as obvious over the Best, Bonella, and Mills references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed a post‑grant review petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, asserting that 15 claims are obvious over prior art such as Kim and Lee. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error and national‑security stakes. The petition challenges the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” based solely on patent age.
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.