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
Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a single device capturing both location and time data, violating the particularity requirement. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al.vsRailware, Inc. et al.
Westinghouse (Wabtec) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Railware’s 9,517,782 patent covering a railway block‑release system, arguing the claims are obvious over public FRA reports and several secret‑code patents.
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01524 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This allows the proceeding to move forward to merits review.
Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.vsEnveric Biosciences Canada, Inc.
Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Enveric Biosciences' 2024 patent covering halogenated psilocybin derivatives, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement for all 26 claims.
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.