Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.

IPR2024-00791

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00791
Decision Date
5 March 2024
Filing Date
5 March 2024

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

patentPGR2026-00042

Wealth, Inc.vs--

Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.

patentIPR2026-00325

Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patentIPR2026-00297

Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2026-00187

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.

patentIPR2026-00186

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGolden Eye Technologies LLC

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.

patentIPR2026-00334

Pinterest, Inc.vs--

Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call