Semiconductors — US PTAB Patent Cases
205 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 7 · 205 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
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.
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.
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
Elmos Semiconductor SE challenged Texas Instruments' LED driver patent (11653432) in the PTAB, alleging obviousness and anticipation. The petitioner relies on a combination of multiple prior art references to invalidate claims 1-20 related to power management ICs.
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.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of IPR2024-00790 was denied after the Patent Owner filed a Notice of Appeal, which stripped the PTAB of jurisdiction. The Board cited In re Graves in reaching its decision.
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 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.
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).
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit disclosure to parties with good cause.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo (via IQE PLC) petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 24 claims of Cornell’s ’360 epitaxial‑growth patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references under §103. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy favoring settlements.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB has issued an Institution Decision for IPR2025-00007, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The case involves obviousness challenges (103) against Trina Solar's solar cell patent using combinations of prior art from Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek challenges MOSAID's patent (7945885) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of Nowka/Borkar and Nicol/Borkar. The petitioner argues that the combination of prior art references provides clear motivation to combine elements for advanced power management features in SoCs.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against MOSAID’s power‑island patent. The Board found the petitioner’s arguments about plural sleep transistors and POSITA knowledge unsubstantiated.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the validity of BX LED LLC's patent (8567988) based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art, specifically Cao753 and Baek/Cao630, discloses all or elements of the claimed LED packaging technology.
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.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread seeks a PTAB Director Review to overturn the Board’s claim construction that narrows the carrier‑movement limitation of its semiconductor patent. The owner argues the construction conflicts with the specification, prosecution history, and district‑court rulings, and that the cited references do not teach the required functionality.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems argues that the PTAB correctly applied the prosecution history to the ‘aid the movement of carriers’ limitation and that Greenthread’s Director Review request merely repeats arguments already rejected. The petitioner seeks denial of the request to preserve the invalidity finding.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB sent an email directing Samsung Austin Semiconductor to file a limited 15‑page response to a Director Review request for IPR2024‑00534 and IPR2024‑00535, prohibiting new evidence and additional briefings.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00534 concerning patent 9,138,862. The order affirms the earlier IPR outcome and provides no further relief.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00535 concerning patent 9,724,802. The order confirms that the decision stands.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Intellectual Ventures II's patent claims related to DDR SDRAM timing calibration and memory controllers. The petitioner argues that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references Johnson, Jeddeloh, and Keeth. This challenges the validity of a key patent in the semiconductor technology space.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Ltd.’s semiconductor‑device patent. The patent owner argues the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and should deny institution due to untimely stipulations and parallel district‑court litigation.
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.