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
Microsoft Corporation et al.vsDialect, LLC
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Askeladden L.L.C.vsCalabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB instituted trial on all four claims of patent 7357310 after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner, Askeladden L.L.C., would prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The grounds relied heavily on the prior art reference 'Horie' to anticipate and render obvious the mobile payment authorization claims.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al.vsFienile Agronecócios LTDA
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent, arguing that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent is opposed by iCashe, which argues the Director correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no right to institution.
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.