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
Apple Inc.vs--
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.vsBreckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its Indian affiliate petition PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Breckenridge’s 2021 dabigatran composition patent, arguing obviousness over Brauns combined with Leane or Sugimoto.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al.vsMicron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.
Kia Corporation et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
BOTE, LLCvsSTEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.
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.