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
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
The PTAB institution decision allows Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110 B2 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Petitioner's view of the level of ordinary skill in the art and conducted claim construction for key 'means for' limitations. This sets the stage for a full IPR review against Headwater Research LLC.
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s ’449 patent covering video‑thumbnail navigation. The petition argues that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art references Bryant, Kaplan and Horn, and seeks institution of the review.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01499 concerning U.S. Patent 9,299,730. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing that the Board has not decided the merits and that settlement serves public policy interests.
Google LLCvsAccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of AccuSearch’s ’184 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists eight §103 grounds covering the full claim set.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al.vsMR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Resonac files an IPR petition challenging MR Technologies' 11,138,997 patent covering perpendicular magnetic recording media. The petition asserts obviousness over Takenoiri (and Li for certain claims) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑2, 4‑7, and 9.
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.