Short Summary
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent, arguing the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and failed to deny institution despite weak merits.
Detailed Summary
In a Request for Director Review, Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) challenges the PTAB’s institution of an inter partes review of its 3D NAND patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,879,254) by Micron Technology. YMTC contends the Board erred by accepting Dr. Lee’s conclusory expert testimony to fill a missing "simultaneously etching" limitation that the cited prior art—Nakajima, Tessariol, and Mushiga—does not disclose. Additionally, YMTC argues the Board improperly declined to exercise its discretion to deny institution, despite finding the petition’s merits “not particularly strong” and that nine of fifteen challenged claims lack a reasonable likelihood of success. The Patent Owner requests vacatur of the institution decision under 35 U.S.C. §311(b).
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 Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al.vsHealthier Choices Management Corp.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.
Tommy John, Inc.vsPakage Apparel, Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims (1-13, 15, 16) were unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Board accepted Petitioner's argument that Kitsch satisfied key limitations like 'stretch panel,' and broadly construed material requirements to favor the petitioner.
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al.vsHarbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung and NXP successfully invalidated a large portion of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent portfolio in the IPR proceeding. The Board found multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) using prior art references like Yu, Okashita, and Burgener. This final decision significantly weakens the patent owner’s position in semiconductor device technology.
Google LLCvsVirtaMove, Corp.
The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs against VirtaMove’s migration‑related patent. The order applies uniformly to all listed cases.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243). The Board found sufficient merit in Petitioner's obviousness challenges, despite Patent Owner invoking prior art estoppel.
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.