Short Summary
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Palisade Technologies, leaving the institution denials in place.
Detailed Summary
In a rehearing order dated December 22, 2025, the USPTO Director denied Micron Technology's and Micron Semiconductor Products' petitions for Director Review of the decisions not to institute IPR2025-01008 (patent 8,327,051 B2) and IPR2025-01009 (patent 9,281,314 B1) brought by Palisade Technologies, LLP. After considering the parties' submissions, the Director concluded that the original institution decisions were proper, and therefore the requests for review were denied, maintaining the status quo that the IPRs were not instituted.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Micron Technology Inc. et al. vs Palisade Technologies, LLP is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Fluidmaster, Inc.vsDanco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Danco's patent (9103105) regarding toilet fill valves. The Board granted institution on multiple grounds, setting the stage for a full trial to determine if the claims are unpatentable over prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Radian’s ’656 flash‑memory controller patent, asserting obviousness over Reiter, SCSI standards and other prior art. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in its IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
Intel Corporation et al.vsCollision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering multi‑user detection. They rely on obviousness over Fuller‑Reznik and Frank‑Zha combinations and argue that discretionary denial factors favor institution.
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.