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
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 55 claims of SiOnyx’s U.S. Patent 11,069,737 covering textured‑layer image sensors. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and asks the Board not to deny institution.
Google LLCvsPOINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pointwise Ventures’ 8,471,812 patent, alleging obviousness over Oami, Du, and Darrell references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
Snap, Inc.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00896, leaving the IPR's outcome unchanged.
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.