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
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent in IPR2020‑00903. The Board found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against the ’430 patent for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light following settlements with BirchTech. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and public policy favoring settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsVasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company
The Board found that all eleven challenged claims of the jump starter apparatus patent were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on finding that Richardson and Zhao teachings, combined with common USB technology, satisfied the claim limitations.
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.