Short Summary
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00499, Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent 8,803,214 owned by Micron Technology, Inc., asserting that claims 8, 13, and 21 are anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0286283 (Lung) under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e) and rendered obvious by Lung under §103. Additional obviousness grounds are presented for the same claims in view of the combination of Park with Mokhlesi and Fukuzumi with Mokhlesi, also under §103. The petition argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a) and requests that the Board cancel the challenged claims. No institution decision has been made, and the proceeding remains at the petition stage.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. vs Micron Technology, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al.vsTangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,981,350 B1, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before it was instituted.
Volex plcvsCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Lugthart‑706, Gorecki‑617 and the IEEE 802.3‑2015 Ethernet standard.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Genzyme’s ‘377 patent on AAV detection methods, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition details three grounds of obviousness and asserts no secondary considerations outweigh the evidence.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SEvsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies challenges Johns Hopkins’ U.S. Patent 12,115,233, arguing that its FAP‑α imaging claims are obvious, lack enablement, are indefinite, and double‑patented. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of claims 1‑4.
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Guardant Health’s cfDNA sequencing patent after Foundation Medicine (Petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of success on an obviousness ground over several prior‑art references.
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.