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
Cholla Energy LLC et al.vsLANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy LLC et al. successfully had their patent claims instituted at the PTAB, asserting that LANCIUM LLC's power delivery patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references like Pelio and Chapel would render the challenged claims unpatentable in the data center space.
Red Hat, Inc.vsCompetitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
Henri Daussi, LLCvsECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 9,398,791 covering an oblong diamond cut, citing multiple prior‑art references for lack of novelty and obviousness.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al.vsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks to cancel claims 10‑15 of Maxeon’s 315 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art back‑contact solar cell teachings. The petition cites multiple references and asserts discretionary denial does not apply.
Coretronic CorporationvsMaxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,593,580 covering a projection-type display apparatus. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds combining prior art such as Ishino, Erchak, Li ’415, Uchiyama, and Bakker, and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
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.