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
Curio Bioscience, Inc.vsPrognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (over Cantor/Armani) and anticipation (by Frisen).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 36 claims of SiOnyx’s ’599 image‑sensor patent, asserting that each claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the lack of prior petitions and a stayed ITC case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsW&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s memory patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the Board correctly applied discretionary denial factors. The response contends Samsung failed to meet the statutory standard for review and that its arguments are insufficient.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.
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.