Short Summary
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Yangtze Memory’s ESD bus patent, arguing obviousness over Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Detailed Summary
Micron Technology, Inc. filed Petition IPR2025-00118 seeking inter partes review of claims 1‑14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,879,164 owned by Yangtze Memory Technologies. The petition asserts that the claimed integrated‑circuit electrostatic‑discharge bus structure is obvious in view of the prior‑art references Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis, combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill. Micron also argues that there are no grounds for a §314(a) discretionary denial and that a §325(d) denial would be inappropriate, urging the Board to institute the proceeding and find the 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
Amazon.com Services LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon's IPR2026-00088 while denying it for related PGR and IPR proceedings.
Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch LabsvsFullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs lost its IPR challenge against Fullthrottle Technologies regarding location determination and advertising targeting. The PTAB denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the cited prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsFour Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of its IPR on patent 7,502,348, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violated due process and the APA.
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.