Short Summary
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
Detailed Summary
In this Institution Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing regarding the denial of institution of IPR against U.S. Patent No. 11,600,342 B2. The Petitioner argued that the Board misconstrued its obviousness arguments as inherency claims, asserting that voltage differentials in Seo and Nam inherently remove fast charges when combined with Choi's teachings on charge-trap memory. However, the Board maintained that the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof by not providing sufficient objective evidence or explanation for how a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would understand this inherent property.
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
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Maxell defends its ’650 Patent on personalized content delivery, arguing that Samsung’s cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not teach the claimed one‑to‑one content‑to‑device mapping. The response also challenges the petitioner's expert credibility and claim construction.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request to overturn the USPTO’s denial of institution for several IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent (US 9,122,965). The petition argues the Board erred and seeks to have the IPRs instituted.
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01598, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent 9005293 at the merits stage.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G scheduling patent, asserting obviousness over 3GPP standards.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al.vsMultifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.
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.