Semiconductor memory — US PTAB Patent Cases
103 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 4 · 103 total
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 has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of IPR 2025‑01009, arguing that the Board ignored national‑security stakes and relied improperly on patent age. The request cites examiner errors and Fintiv factors supporting institution.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron requests PTAB Director review of a denied institution for IPR against Palisade’s 9,281,314 memory‑chip patent, citing national‑security stakes, examiner error, and Fintiv factors. The petition argues the Board’s settled‑expectations analysis is misplaced.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron requests a Director Review to overturn the PTAB's denial of institution for an IPR against its DRAM patents, citing national‑security importance, examiner error, and improper reliance on settled expectations.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error, improper settled‑expectations reliance, and national‑security stakes.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11307995 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,347,656 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01376 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,347,656. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
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
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology's request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the petitioner’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness unpersuasive.
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.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging all 12 claims of Vervain’s ‘300 NAND‑flash patent, arguing obviousness over the Gavens system and related prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of IPRs against Micron’s flash‑memory patents, 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.
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.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Micron’s 3D NAND patent (U.S. 8,803,214) on anticipation and obviousness grounds, citing Kang, Fukuzumi and Ahn references. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks institution of review.
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.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison’s petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘370 hybrid NAND‑flash patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The petition targets claims 1‑18 and seeks cancellation under §§ 112(a), 112(b), 103 and 101. Institution of the review is pending.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Costa and, when combined with Oh, lack patentability. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds and seeks institution.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Micron (on behalf of Phison) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, arguing they are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Vervain’s ‘369 NAND‑flash patent, alleging abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Vervain’s ‘300 NAND flash patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution to streamline parallel district‑court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed a petition to invalidate claims 6, 7, 10, and 20 of YMTC’s 3D NAND joint‑opening patent, asserting obviousness over Costa combined with Liu, Lee, and Toyama. The petitioner also argues there are no discretionary reasons to deny institution.
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.