Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.

IPR2025-01281

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01281
Filing Date
9 March 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries IPL and WPL settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,596,517 for those parties.

patentIPR2025-00487

Google LLCvsVirtaMove, Corp.

Google’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against VirtaMove’s virtualization patent was rejected. The Board upheld the Director’s authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 316, leaving the patent’s validity untouched.

patentIPR2025-00521

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATIONvsWorcester Polytechnic Institute

Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.

patentIPR2024-00432

Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the patent was anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Zhang et al., in combination with other cited references.

patentIPR2025-00016

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al.vsTecan Group AG

The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability asserted by the Petitioner regarding NGS target enrichment claims. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow definition of 'enrichment,' finding that the prior art failed to teach the claimed proportional increase in target fragments.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call