Short Summary
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on a 3‑D memory patent was denied. The Board’s findings that the petitioner’s proposed modifications were inoperable and lacked motivation were upheld.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024‑00791, Micron Technology challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,937,806 covering a through‑array contact (TAC) for three‑dimensional memory devices owned by Yangtze Memory Technologies. The petitioner sought Director Review, arguing errors on Grounds 2 and 3, including alleged requirements for bodily incorporation and improper handling of new reply arguments. The patent owner’s authorized response demonstrated that the Board correctly rejected the grounds, finding that the proposed lateral replication of Toyama’s layout would render the device inoperable, that no motivation existed for a skilled artisan, and that the Board properly considered all arguments without requiring anticipation evidence. Consequently, the Board’s decision stands and the Director Review request is denied.
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
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsOptronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group successfully initiated an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's LCD sealant patterns patent, securing institution based on favorable claim construction. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of key terms like 'predetermined material layer,' significantly advancing the petitioner's position in this complex display technology dispute.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of Headwater’s ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references Limont, Wright, Xu and Polson.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to WEC Energy Group after the parties settled their dispute over Patent 10,668,430. The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, and the proceeding continues against them.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research LLC filed a notice of partial settlement, confirming a worldwide licensing agreement with Apple and releasing all claims against Apple and related defendants in the district court case against Amazon.
fuboTV Media Inc.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV's request for rehearing of its IPR decision on patent 11,677,798. The Board held that the petitioner failed to show any misapprehension of prior‑art mappings or erroneous claim construction, leaving the earlier mixed result 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.