Short Summary
SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review, SK hynix Inc. challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,400,835 owned by Advanced Memory Technologies LLC. The petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are either anticipated by the Japanese patents Murakami (JPH06150670A) and Kobayashi (JPH0562484A) or rendered obvious by combining Murakami with the U.S. patent Yu (2007/0263449A1) and by applying a POSITA’s knowledge to Kobayashi. The petition argues that these references disclose all claim limitations and were not considered by the examiner, and therefore requests that the PTAB institute an 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 SK hynix Inc. vs Advanced Memory Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Belden Inc. et al.vsCommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against CommScope’s flexible‑bag patent. They argue the Board mischaracterized an interference search as prior art and ignored material examiner error.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al.vsEye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges Eye Therapies' patent (11833245) in an IPR, arguing all claims are obvious over prior art including Gil and Norden. The petition asserts that the combination of known elements for treating eye redness is motivated by POSA knowledge, favoring institution under Hatch-Waxman principles.
Clearwater Paper Corporationvs--
Clearwater Paper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging’s biodegradable cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness over Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution and requests institution of the trial.
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC
Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.vsNivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The USPTO denied Sun Pharmaceutical's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00893, leaving the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted unchanged.
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.