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
Micron Technology Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error, improper settled‑expectations reliance, and national‑security stakes.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G NR downlink control information patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over 3GPP standards and the Zhang patent.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard’s IPR challenge to Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency patent focuses on Claim 8’s variable multiplier. Milestone’s response argues the cited prior art does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier, rendering the petition’s grounds insufficient.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing and refused to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent, citing the parallel district court trial and discretionary authority. The decision rests on six Fintiv factors and the weakness of the petition’s merits.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent, alleging obviousness over multiple 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.