Short Summary
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘370 hybrid NAND‑flash patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The petition targets claims 1‑18 and seeks cancellation under §§ 112(a), 112(b), 103 and 101. Institution of the review is pending.
Detailed Summary
In Petition for Post‑Grant Review PGR2025‑00011, Phison Electronics Corporation challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,967,370, owned by Vervain, LLC, which claims a hybrid MLC‑SLC NAND flash memory system with data‑integrity testing and wear‑leveling. Phison contends that the claims lack adequate written description for terms such as “memory space” and “memory element,” are indefinite under § 112(b), and are obvious in view of the Gavens reference and numerous other NAND‑flash publications and patents. The petition invokes §§ 112(a), 112(b), 103 and 101, requesting cancellation of all 18 claims. The Board must decide whether to institute the review, with the petition noting pending district‑court litigation in the Western District of Texas and multiple related PTAB proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Phison Electronics Corporation vs Vervain, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully overcame the Patent Owner's attempt to deny the IPR, leading to the institution of the case against Apex Beam Technologies LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Apple can prove obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Cirik and Wu.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied the Director Review requests filed by TSMC and Apple challenging the denial to institute IPR2025-00848 against Marlin Semiconductor's patent.
Dr. Squatch, LLCvsThe Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges The Procter & Gamble Company's patent (11540999) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed deodorant stick compositions are merely basic concepts already known or readily derivable from existing natural deodorant prior art.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the denial ignored settled‑expectations guidance, Fintiv factors, and a Sotera stipulation, and was applied retroactively after the Vidal Memo was rescinded.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Mannheimer.
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.