Short Summary
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on claim 4 of Yangtze Memory’s 3D memory patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to demonstrate a motivation or benefit for the alleged modification.
Detailed Summary
In an authorized response to a Director Review request, the PTAB affirmed its earlier finding that claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,868,031, covering a multiple‑stack three‑dimensional memory device, is not obvious. Micron Technology argued that the Board applied an overly demanding standard, but the Board emphasized that obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 requires a concrete, evidence‑based motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior references. The petitioner relied on generic knowledge of conductive‑core pillars and the prior art references “Kim” and “Tessariol” without showing why a skilled artisan would modify Kim’s dummy structures or what benefit would result. The Board found no such motivation or benefit and denied the request for Director Review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Micron Technology, Inc. et al. vs Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC
An email notifies that the PTAB has received a Director Review request in IPR2024-01083 and outlines strict response limits for Apple.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute inter partes review of claims 18‑21 of its communication‑service device patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in claim construction and denied due‑process rights by refusing a preliminary reply.
National Beef Packing Company, LLCvsInstitute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against the '771 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of success over at least one claim. The Board adopted Petitioner's definition for 'validation,' clarifying that it merely requires a sample test negative, rejecting the Patent Owner's broader interpretation regarding commercial release.
Nike, Inc.vsSherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,551 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under §317.
Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.