Short Summary
The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.
Detailed Summary
Micron Technology, Inc. petitioned for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 10,886,291, challenging several claims related to joint opening structures in 3D memory devices. However, the Board denied institution because Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd., the patent owner, had filed a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). The Board confirmed that this disclaimer was properly recorded on May 9, 2025, thus precluding any review of those claims.
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
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al.vsDowning Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted PGR on claims 1-78 of the '952 patent after reviewing multiple grounds, including eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). The Board found a likelihood of success for Petitioner despite arguments from Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations.
Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑arrangement patent. The petition relies on five grounds of obviousness over prior‑art references such as Cok, Suh, Hong, Credelle‑379 and Elliott‑724. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsLowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsDivX, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of DivX’s adaptive bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over Ozer, Liao, Gu, and Ronca. The petition requests the Board to institute review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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.