Semiconductors — US PTAB Patent Cases
42 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 42 total
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE's IPR challenge against Texas Instruments Incorporated was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that ELMOS lacked adequate motivation and particularity in its obviousness arguments across multiple grounds.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology petitioned to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent 10861872, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Park and Tessariol. The PTAB granted institution based on a reasonable likelihood of success, despite ongoing district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash Memory operation claims, challenging the patent's validity under 102 and 103. The petition argues that the claimed features are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. initiated an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s 3D NAND patent (10950623). The PTAB has instituted the proceedings based on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Park and Shibata.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG has initiated an IPR challenge against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s LED packaging patents, arguing that the core 'U-shaped' electrode structure is anticipated and obvious in existing prior art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell fabrication patent (8878053). The petitioner argues that the claimed processes are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 by combining known elements from prior art references like Froitzheim, Gan, and Smith. The Board noted that discretionary denial was unwarranted due to factors related to multiple petitions.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. challenges K. Mizra LLC's '608 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding DDR DRAM memory controllers and timing calibration. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Johnson, Stubbs, Moss, and Liou.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
The PTAB found that the claims of the voltage regulator are unpatentable under § 103 based on a combination of Al-Shyoukh and Ivanov. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of key terms, including finding 'gm enhanced' synonymous with 'gm boost.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,806 was not unpatentable over Toyama. The challenge failed because the Petitioner could not demonstrate obviousness for its base independent claim 8.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1–6 and 11–13 unpatentable over Tessariol, while finding them patentable over Park. The Board's decision hinged on claim construction, specifically defining 'dummy source structure' as one that does not function as a source to memory cells. This outcome significantly impacts the validity of the asserted claims in 3D Memory Devices (NAND).
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Maxeon Solar, challenging claims related to solar cell fabrication. The Board found that Canadian Solar demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds over various prior art combinations. This sets up a high-stakes trial in advanced photovoltaic technology.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. lost its request for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company regarding NAND Flash memory patents.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology failed to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent on obviousness grounds in a PTAB IPR decision. The Board found that the petitioner could not demonstrate that combining prior art teachings would render the claimed 3D Flash memory invention obvious.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's request for rehearing of the institution denial in its IPR against Yangtze Memory was denied by the PTAB. The Board upheld its construction of key terms, finding no abuse of discretion.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND flash technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments concerning claim scope, specifically finding that 'dummy source structure' must not function as a memory cell source.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash patents, finding insufficient evidence to prove obviousness over the cited prior art (Seo and Choi).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board adopted a narrow construction of 'dummy source structure,' finding that the Petitioner met its burden for obviousness over Tessariol and Park. This paves the way for further litigation against the patent owner.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the solar cell technology. The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over Chang in view of Jin, or other combinations.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficient to teach the claimed solar cell structure. This decision validates the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness in photovoltaic technology.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent were obvious over prior art references. The Board credited the petitioner's evidence, concluding that an ordinary artisan would have combined Chang and Jin to achieve the claimed isolation features with reasonable success.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 17 challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found specific combinations of prior art, notably Chang and Jin, rendered the claimed solar cell structures obvious.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in challenging claims related to step-down regulators. The challenge centered on anticipation and obviousness over prior art, specifically regarding pseudo constant on time (PCOT) control circuits.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent (11251315). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 10-20 over combinations of prior art references like Choi, Granek, and Marvin.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies' IPR challenge against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, specifically rejecting arguments based on barrier height optimization.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that its claims related to Magnetic Tunnel Junction Devices were unpatentable over various prior art references. The Board denied institution because the petition lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies' IPR petition against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the argument that substituting CoFeB for Fe would be obvious based on prior art teachings regarding amorphous versus crystalline structures.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies successfully secured institution of its IPR against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding MTJ technology claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to support obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art, including Bowen and Sunai.
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.