Short Summary
The PTAB held claims 1, 10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s ’035 memory‑module patent unpatentable as obvious over Osanai and Tokuhiro, while claims 2, 6, and 22 remained valid.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2022‑00236, Micron Technology challenged Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 9,824,035 B2 covering a memory module with timing‑controlled data paths. The Board instituted review on all challenged claims and evaluated three grounds of obviousness. It concluded that the combination of the Osanai and Tokuhiro references rendered claims 1, 10‑13, and 21 obvious, but found the petitioner’s evidence insufficient to invalidate claims 2, 6, and 22, particularly regarding the definition of a “second memory operation.” The final written decision therefore renders six claims unpatentable and leaves three upheld.
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 Netlist, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP.vsCisco Technology, Inc., et al.
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cisco’s ’293 video‑superposition patent, arguing they are obvious over the Tysso system and a GIMP user manual. The petition cites detailed expert testimony and prior‑art references to support the unpatentability argument.
r-pac International CorporationvsAdasa Inc
The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPR and PGR petitions, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The request asks the Director to terminate the proceedings.
Apple Inc.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 12,028,793, arguing that the Board has not yet ruled on institution and that proceeding would waste resources. The motion seeks pre‑institution dismissal while other related IPRs remain active in parallel litigation.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00758 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,908,508.
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.