Short Summary
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND word‑line contact patent. The petition asserts obviousness over Kim, Park, and Fang references and argues there are no discretionary grounds to deny institution.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-00117), Micron Technology seeks to invalidate claims 1‑19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,672,711 owned by Yangtze Memory Technologies. The patent covers a word‑line contact structure for three‑dimensional memory devices. Micron contends that each claim is obvious in view of prior‑art references Kim, Park, and Fang, either alone or in combination, and that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §314 or §325(d). The petition includes detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings to the prior art and cites numerous Federal Circuit precedents. Micron requests the Board institute the IPR and find the challenged claims unpatentable.
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
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP settled their IPR dispute before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al.vsKyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
The IPRs challenging Kyocera’s patents were terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the agreement kept confidential.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLCvsCarbyne, Ltd. et al.
CentralSquare (CST) opposes Carbyne’s request for a good‑cause extension to seek Director Review in IPR2025‑01179, asserting the deadline was missed intentionally and no claim‑construction conflict exists. The email urges the Director to deny the contingent request.
Aerin Medical Inc.vsNeurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. 9,082,239 vehicle‑infotainment patent, asserting that all 35 claims are obvious over existing vehicle‑technology disclosures.
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.