Short Summary
SanDisk and Longitude Flash have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties rely on statutory authority to terminate the proceeding pre‑institution.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01281, SanDisk Technologies, Inc. and patent owner Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. filed an unopposed joint motion to dismiss the inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 covering NAND flash memory. Citing their settlement agreement and the fact that the Director has not yet issued an institution decision, the parties invoke 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.71(a) to terminate the proceeding. The motion emphasizes public‑policy support for settlement and references prior Board decisions granting dismissal of pre‑institution petitions. If granted, the IPR will be terminated without a merits determination.
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 Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsAmerican GNC Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1 and 4 unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically citing Smith/Chan/Bernstein and Tingleff/Chan/Bernstein. The Board maintained its construction that the 'micro inertial measurement unit' limitation requires MEMS implementation.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s 13 claims covering PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to have the claims declared unpatentable.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsPortsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Portsmouth Network’s ’088 patent on bandwidth‑sharing routing, arguing obviousness over Dziong, Sathyanath and Jensen, and opposing discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
Google successfully opposed EyesMatch’s Director Review request, arguing consistent position and lack of procedural error. The Board denied the request, leaving the patent’s claims unaltered.
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.