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
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.
DELL INC. et al.vsAX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,291,449, citing a settlement agreement and the Board’s authority to end proceedings before a final decision.
Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all five claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed invention was obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Izumi and Cosper.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 10952153. The review challenges the obviousness of TPC commands in wireless networks.
DraftKings Inc. et al.vsWinView IP Holdings, LLC
DraftKings has filed a petition to invalidate multiple claims of WinView’s ’189 fantasy‑sports patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition requests cancellation of 16 claims under §§102 and 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.