Micron Technology Inc. et al. v. Palisade Technologies, LLP

IPR2025-01008

An email informs Micron and Palisade that a Director Review has been requested for IPR2025-01008 (and 01009). The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed, and the Director will decide on the request.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01008
Filing Date
30 May 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00697

Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.

Apple Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8093767) regarding vibration modules and haptics. The Petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 103.

patentIPR2025-01371

Red Hat, Inc.vsCompetitive Access Systems, Inc.

Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.

patentIPR2024-01281

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsLionra Technologies Limited

Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that Cisco’s high‑speed packet‑processing claims are unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board erred in accepting a new reply theory and misapplied inherency standards.

patentIPR2024-00785

Toyota Motor Corp. et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC

The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Emerging Automotive LLC's vehicle access control patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.

patentIPR2024-00995

Anker Innovations Ltd.vsPowermat Technologies Ltd.

Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their wireless‑charging patent dispute in IPR2024‑00995. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

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