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
Voltage, LLC et al.vsShoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC challenges Shoals Technologies Group's photovoltaic connector patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious by combining conventional elements found across several prior art references related to solar power installations.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based data exchange, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,825,801 patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and lack of new evidence justified the denial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01267 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision confirms the proceeding will move forward to merits review.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
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.