Short Summary
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,524,974 covering NAND flash memory structures, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds targeting all challenged claims.
Detailed Summary
Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. have submitted a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,524,974, owned by Palisade Technologies, LLP. The petition challenges twelve claims (1‑2, 4, 6, 11‑18) that relate to NAND flash memory formation and bit‑line architecture. Micron contends that each claim is obvious in view of the Matsuno, Zhang, Kao, and Kwak references, either singly or in combination, and provides detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings. Six distinct obviousness grounds are presented, and the petitioner requests that the Board institute the IPR and cancel the challenged claims. No settlement or discretionary denial issues are noted, and the proceeding remains at the petition stage.
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 Palisade Technologies, LLP 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.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision in this IPR found that the petitioner met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1. The dispute centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding medical devices used for aspirating clot material from blood vessels.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al.vsAtossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 44 claims of Atossa’s 391 patent covering 90% (Z)-endoxifen compositions, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01252, allowing the challenger to proceed with the review.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Sanas.ai’s U.S. Patent No. 12,125,496 covering neural‑network‑based voice enhancement. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and proposes a specific construction for the term “low‑dimensional representation.”
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.