Short Summary
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Inpria's EUV lithography patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness issues. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Detailed Summary
Lam Research Corp. petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,537,048, which claims organotin‑based photoresist structures for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. The petitioner argues that claims 1‑20 are obvious in view of prior‑art references Dhas, Cardineau, Weidman, and Molloy, and that several means‑plus‑function terms lack definite structure under §112(6). Additional arguments include improper priority dating due to new matter added after filing and that discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a) is unwarranted. The petition requests that the Board institute the trial and cancel all challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Lam Research Corp. vs Inpria Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Evenflo Company, Inc.vsBaby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo has filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent (US 11,577,771). The petition attacks priority and asserts obviousness over five prior‑art references covering claims 1‑15. The case is pending institution by the PTAB.
Google LLC et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
A coalition of tech giants and wireless carriers, including Google LLC and Verizon Wireless, has filed an IPR petition against Headwater Research's '541 patent. The petitioners challenge the validity based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), citing combinations of prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 18‑23, 39‑44, and 56‑60 of Netlist’s ’537 patent are obvious over the Amidi and Klein references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable.
Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across several IPR and PGR proceedings. Some cases were denied based on efficiency or prior rulings, while others proceeded to merits review.
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.