Short Summary
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025-00498 (patent 8,803,214). The denial also applies to three related IPRs covering the same patent.
Detailed Summary
In a Director Review order dated November 3, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.’s petitions for Director Review of the USPTO’s decisions denying institution of IPR2025-00498 and three companion IPRs (IPR2025-00499, IPR2025-00500, IPR2025-00501) that all involve Micron Technology’s patent 8,803,214 B2. The petitions, filed by Bayes PLLC, were considered alongside the patent owner’s responses from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and the Director concluded that the statutory standards for review were not met, resulting in a denial of all Director Review requests.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. vs Micron Technology, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsPayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.vsGreenthread, LLC
Greenthread, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction in a power‑semiconductor patent owned by Monolithic Power Systems. The owner contends the Board’s construction mischaracterizes the claims and that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.vsCredo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering high‑speed serial‑link equalization. The challenger relies on a combination of prior‑art references that teach known equalization, preset selection, and training techniques.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy)vsEli Lilly & Co.
Empower Pharmacy filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s discretionary denial of institution for Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petition argues that Lilly’s reliance on settled‑expectations and Orange Book listings is misplaced and that the examiner’s error was manifest. The request seeks to have the trial instituted to correct the alleged error and curb high drug prices.
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.