Semiconductor memory — US PTAB Patent Cases
64 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 3 · 64 total
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,281,314 covering NAND flash memory structures. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Kang, Kang‑1, Purayath, and Murata—using Phillips claim‑construction standards. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s memory patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the Board correctly applied discretionary denial factors. The response contends Samsung failed to meet the statutory standard for review and that its arguments are insufficient.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑01281, citing a settlement that they want kept confidential under §317. The Board is asked to seal the settlement and end the proceeding.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk has filed a petition to invalidate 42 claims of Longitude Flash’s 2022 SONOS memory patent, asserting obviousness over Lee ’255, Lee ’961, and Fujiwara. The petition details claim constructions and cites extensive prior art.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s ’298 patent covering hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND‑flash memory. The petition asserts that all eleven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND flash patent. The petitioner argues the Board improperly relied on ‘settled expectations’ and applied new PTO guidance retroactively. The request challenges the discretionary denial under §314(a).
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,373,974. The denial leaves the original institution denials, which refused to institute the trials, in effect.
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 3D NAND patent. The petitioner contends the Board relied improperly on a “settled expectations” factor and violated procedural rules. The request aims to overturn the denial and move the case forward.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art by Lee, Freeman, and Lim. The petition also asserts that discretionary denial does not apply.
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.