Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
The Director sent a notice to counsel for both parties indicating that Micron Technology’s petition for Director Review of IPR2025-01008 (and the related IPR2025-01009) has been received. Palisade Technologies, the patent owner, is authorized to submit a response confined to the issues raised, limited to 15 pages, and must be filed within five business days via the P-TACTS system. No new evidence may be introduced, and the Director will determine whether to grant or deny the review, after which the parties will be notified.
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 Palisade Technologies, LLP is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.vsMeridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Meridian International’s ’946 patent covering a stackable storage box with a stop‑part mechanism. The petitioner alleges the invention is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Li and Baruch. The Board is asked to institute the trial and invalidate the patent.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al.vsSung, Chien-Min
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Samsung's 8974270, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that combining prior art references renders multiple claims unpatentable.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. et al.vsFirst Solar, Inc.
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Tamura, Borden, Rana and combinations with Gan, Kwark, and Swanson.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices, asserting obviousness over Perttila combined with Insolia or Davis.
Excelliance Mos CorporationvsForce MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB affirmed all nine claims of Force MOS Technology’s ’634 patent after finding Inergy Technology’s IPR unsubstantiated. The Board held that the petitioner failed to prove anticipation or obviousness over Hirler, Shiraishi, and Kobayashi references.
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.