Short Summary
Micron has filed a post‑grant review petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, asserting that 15 claims are obvious over prior art such as Kim and Lee. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for post‑grant review (PGR2025‑00021), Micron Technology, Inc. challenges claims 1, 3‑7, and 12‑20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,838, which cover a staircase structure for 3D memory devices. Micron contends that the claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references, including U.S. Patent No. 10,229,929 (Kim) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0191389 A1 (Lee), as well as Yang, Haller, and Park for specific limitations. The petition argues there are no secondary considerations supporting patentability and that no § 314 discretionary denial applies, requesting the PTAB to institute the proceeding and cancel the challenged claims.
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 Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of a video‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over prior art references Mao, Liu, Sherer and Wu‑771.
Hulu LLC et al.vs--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑00787 and to keep the settlement agreement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory provisions.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against XtreamEdge regarding a PLD patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that the combination of prior art references Seshadri and Biederman provided sufficient grounds for challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01493. The Board set a brief response window for the patent owner and barred new evidence. The Director will decide on the review request.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical's 11,865,291 patent covering hemostasis valves. The petitioner asserts anticipation and obviousness based on Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
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.