Executive 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.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsNL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01277 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Okta, Inc., et al.vs--
Okta has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all sixteen claims of Thales’s ’103 patent covering security policies for eID wallets on mobile devices. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Makhotin, Coulomb, Jones and others.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al.vsGoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike seeks IPR of GoSecure’s U.S. Patent 9,954,872 covering methods for detecting unauthorized computer activities. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Capalik, King, Pike, and Farley, and urges the Board to institute the review.
National Beef Packing Company, LLCvsInstitute for Environmental Health, Inc.
The PTAB instituted the IPR after finding a reasonable likelihood of success that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board analyzed key claim terms, preliminarily construing 'validated' as a negative test result rather than release into commerce.
TransCore, LP et al.vsHand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over a handheld scanner patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings before trial, treating the settlement as confidential.
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.