Short Summary
Sandisk and Western Digital petition to invalidate Polaris PowerLED’s ’968 patent covering interrupt coalescing in memory controllers, arguing obviousness over Borchers and industry standards. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑00517, Sandisk Technologies, Inc. and Western Digital Technologies, Inc. challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,554,968 owned by Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC. The petition asserts that claims 1‑18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the claimed interrupt‑coalescing techniques were disclosed in the Borchers publication and were further obvious when combined with the PCI/PCIe standards and the Serebrin publication. The petitioner provides a detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis, cites expert testimony from Dr. Paul Min, and argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted, referencing favorable Fintiv factors and the Advanced Bionics test. No institution decision has been made yet.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. vs Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed a petition for inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR institution after the ITC found the challenged claims valid and commercially successful, resulting in a stay of the IPR pending further opinion.
WHOOP, Inc.vsOmni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB, on remand, affirmed that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and upheld the claim construction of “identify an object.”
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR before the Board institutes trial, arguing the proceeding is at an early stage and resources are minimal. The Board has historically granted such pre‑institution dismissals.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
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.