- Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2026 · IPR2025-00117 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–9, 11–16, 18, and 19 as obvious over Kim; claims 10 and 17 as obvious over Kim and Fang, Park, and Park and Fang.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at the critical time “would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2-3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) monolithic 3D structures and NAND flash memory devices, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience).” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42). Petitioner further asserts that a POSITA “would have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about 3D NAND’s structure, its component parts, how it operates, and how it is controlled.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 7. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed 4 Neither party presents evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. Pet. 103; PO Resp. the ’711 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, we agree with Petitioner that “on a surface” should be interpreted in line with the definition of “on” set forth in the ’711 patent. Ex. 1001, 4:1–6. We particularly note that the ’711 patent states that “‘on’ . . . should be interpreted in the broadest manner” and that “on” is not limited to “directly on.” Id. Instead, the ’711 patent states that “‘on’ also includes the meaning of ‘on’ something with an intermediate feature or layer therebetween.” Id. Patent Owner agrees that this definition controls the “standalone ‘on’” term such that A may be on B even if there is an intervening layer between them. Tr. 55:8–11 (“The standalone ‘on,’ we agree in the context of the patent, you can have intervening layers. I think the patent is clear about that.”). Claim 14 recites that the etch-stop layer is “on” something; i.e., “on a side surface and a top surface of each step.” Ex. 1001, 16:20–22. Patent Owner agrees that a surface is a “something.” Tr. 56:5–8 (“surface obviously is a something”). Substituting the “a “‘on’ something with an intermediate feature or layer therebetween” results in claim 14 reading as, “on a surface with an intermediate feature or layer therebetween.” Unlike “directly on,” which specifies the relation between two things, “a surface” may merely indicate the thing that something is “on,” particularly when “on” is “interpreted in the broadest manner” as expressly required by the ’711 patent.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Although Dr. Campbell testified in his deposition in response to Petitioner’s counsel that “on the surface” requires direct contact with the surface, his interpretation was based on “embodiments of” the patent rather than a general understanding of a person skilled in the art confronted with that term. Ex. 1027, 122:6–25, 124:6–23 (“I’m not sure if there are other sources for that, but it was on the ’711, so I’ve taken it there.”). Dr. Campbell, upon questioning from Patent Owner’s counsel, later stated that “an expert in semiconductor fabrication” would understand “on the surface” to mean “contact between one layer and another . . . with nothing in between.” Id. at 146:25–147:6. However, Dr. Campbell did not explain why such an interpretation is particular to the semiconductor fabrication art, or provide other explanation or support for this statement, which is in tension with the definition of “on” in the ’711 patent. Accordingly, we significantly discount the weight accorded to that statement. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (stating, “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court. Similarly, a court should discount any expert testimony ‘that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves, the written description, and patent.’”). On balance, Dr. Campbell’s testimony is best understood as a description of certain Figures of the ’711 patent rather than a representation of an ordinarily skilled person’s understanding of the term “on the surface.” See Ex. 2009 ¶ 47 (describing Figs. 1, 3, and 4 as depicting layers in contact with the underlying layer or substrate). For example, Dr. Campbell describes Figure 9A as having a barrier layer “on and directly contacting the top and side surfaces of each step.” Id. ¶ 28 (emphasis added) (citing inter alia Ex. 1001, 7:6–67). Dr. Campbell does not explain why, beyond the fact that many Figures show layers as adjacent and in contact, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would understand those Figures to limit the claim language rather than illustrating particular embodiments that fall within a broader scope of claims 14 and 15. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“While we read claims in view of the specification, of which they are a part, we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specifications into the claims.”).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Kim’s first and second section are described as compatible, not mutually exclusive, embodiments. Kim’s second section builds further layers upon the structure of its first section, and states: In these embodiments, the same elements as in the embodiments previously described with reference to FIGS. 5A through 14A and FIGS. 5B through 14B will be denoted by the same reference numbers therein, and for concise description, overlapping description of elements previously described with reference to FIGS. 5A through 14A and FIGS. 5B through 14B may be omitted. Ex. 1005 ¶ 184 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that only the embodiments in Figures 17A–22B describe an etch-stop layer and a barrier layer (as claimed), and that the language cited for a gate-stack-on-top configuration (e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 91, and 240) is “conspicuously absent from the description of Figures 17A–22B.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 36). However, Figures 17A–22B do not further address the underlying staircase structure that was detailed in the descriptions of the Figures 4 through 15 embodiments. While Figures 17A–22B show a gate-stack-on-bottom configuration, this merely continues the gate-stack-on-bottom illustrations that were used in all of the previous Figures, even for those in which it is undisputed that a gate-stack-on-top configuration is a described alternative. The Figures exemplify rather than limit the description of the gate-stack-on-bottom view in Figures 4–15 and do not exclude the gate-stack on bottom description of the embodiments exemplified by those figures.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,672,711 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,672,711 - Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach the claimed predetermined cycle for controlling distal fluid flow.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its PO Response, it “accepts ¶ 44). We adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“specification explicitly includes sensors similar to those in the prior art in support of their argument that the claimed “predetermined cycle” must not exclude the use of such sensors. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:55–33:7, 40:66–41:5, 44:9–29). We reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Petitioner. We agree with Patent Owner that one excerpt discussing sensor use appears to be directed to triggering the predetermined cycle rather than causing timing changes during the cycle itself (Ex. 1001, 32:55–66) (describing use of a pressure sensor to “determine when the vacuum channel 3 is clogged by a thrombus and automatically perform the unclogging procedures described herein”), while another excerpt discusses a sensor that Petitioner that the ’402 patent discusses the use of sensors to “tune” the system and that such “tuning” can be done statically (setting the cycle timing in advance) or dynamically (adjusting the timing during the cycle itself). See Ex. 1001, 48:19–49:50. Overall, we find that these disclosures involving sensors demonstrate that sensors may be used in various ways in different embodiments. However, none of these disclosures explicitly discuss the use of sensors in conjunction with a “pre-determined cycle.” Therefore, we find that the ’402 patent specification’s discussion of “sensors” are not particularly informative as to the appropriate construction of a “predetermined cycle” and do not outweigh the other explicit disclosures of “predetermined cycle” in the patent. We next turn to the other intrinsic evidence discussed by the parties — the prosecution history. As discussed by Patent Owner, in the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner found that Garrison did not teach or suggest a “predetermined cycle” because Garrison’s controller “changed the cycle of opening and closing the valves based on feedback from sensors.” Ex. 1004, 86. We acknowledge that the patent applicant filed subsequent comments during prosecution in which they stated that they “do[] not concede that the Examiner’s characterizations of the terms of the claims and the prior art are correct.” Id. at 29. However, we agree with Patent Owner that the importance of the Examiner’s statement in the Notice of Allowance does not rely on it being an express disclaimer (a standard which it does not meet). PO Sur-reply 8. We also considered Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of Garrison may have been in error (PO Resp. 16); however, even if this were true, the Examiner’s statement still provides helpful insight into how the Examiner was interpreting the term sensors to change the opening and closing of valves during a cycle was not a “predetermined cycle.” Id. at 86. In sum, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the term “predetermined cycle” in the ’402 patent specification and prosecution history. Thus, after considering all of the cited evidence, we construe “predetermined cycle” to mean that “the timing of the sequence of valve operations in the cycle is determined beforehand, i.e., fixed, rather than varying based on feedback after operation begins.”” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Other Terms The parties also provided proposed constructions for the limitations of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” and “control[ling] fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” See Pet. 15–16; Pet. Reply 1–8; PO Resp. 22–24; PO Sur-Reply 2–6. However, having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor Mr. Brown propose any combination of Yang and Mullins that does not include Mullins’s pressure sensor in order “to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Indeed, in addressing the “predetermined cycle” limitation, Mr. Brown contends that Mullins discloses a “cycling controller that ‘varies aspiration pressure according to sensed pressure within the catheter lumen.’” Ex.1005 ¶¶ 131–32 (citing, e.g., Ex.1008, 27:40–28:20 (“[a] novel aspect of this pump system is the incorporation of feedback into the pump algorithm in order to produce more effective pressure cycling”)). This use of a sensor to change pressure during a cycle, is not a “predetermined cycle” under our construction. combinations is its discussion of distal end flow control, not for its sensors.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 83). However, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds rely on the combination of Yang and Mullins, especially with regard to Mullins’s disclosure of “a controller” in order “to control fluid flow in and out.” As discussed above, Mullins relies on the sensor-feedback approach in order to control flow and we find that Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence of how the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins would control flow without using Mullins’s sensor feedback approach. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (error to “consider[] … references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in [them] … that diverge from and teach away from the invention”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Yang and Mullins discloses or renders obvious “a controller configured to open and close the vacuum valve and the vent valve in a predetermined cycle to change a level of vacuum at the distal end of the catheter and to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective evidence and arguments, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’402 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,406,402 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,406,402 - Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC / Solaris Oilfield Site Services Personnel, LLC v. Masaba, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01179 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Waldner, Dynatek, and additional references; the Board cancelled all challenged claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Also, to the extent Masaba relies on extrinsic expert testimony, we note that Masaba’s expert cites absolutely no support for his understanding of the claims, much less explains why we should adopt his understanding over the plain and ordinary meaning of “conveying aggregate” and “moving aggregate.” See Ex. 2004 ¶ 34. Absent supporting citations, such extrinsic testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. As such, we reject the notion that Waldner’s discharge chute member 242 is not a conveyor “for conveying aggregate” or “for moving aggregate,” as required by claim elements 1[h] and 1[i].” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that Dr. Durham does not possess the necessary level of skill in the art to qualify as an expert in this case. Looking at the specification of the ’689 patent and the prior art of record, we think Masaba sets the bar too high. We acknowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art should have some education and/or experience in the mechanical art of conveying aggregate materials, but we do not think opining on the ’689 patent and asserted prior art necessarily requires that person to have the amount of education and experience that Masaba advocates. The ’689 patent relates generally to an “aggregate transferring system for receiving aggregate from a vehicle and elevating the aggregate to a higher vertical level for deposit into, for example, a silo.” Ex. 1001, 1:15– 18. And, as described in the ’689 patent and discussed later, the transferring system is an assembly of known types of conveyors, such as a belly-dump truck conveyor, a bucket elevator, and an articulated belt conveyor, for transferring the aggregate horizontally and vertically from a belly-dump truck to the discharge point, such as a silo. Without doubt, Dr. Durham has enough education and experience to reliably opine on the combination of known parts.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction needed
“We reject this argument for several reasons. First, nowhere does the plain language of the claims specify how the aggregate is conveyed or moved from the conveyor extension assembly’s inlet to its outlet, be it passively by means of gravity or actively by means of a conveyor belt. Instead, the claims simply use those verbs according to their plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to transfer or deliver” or “to cause to go or pass” from one place to another. See Ex. 3001, 253 (defining “convey”), 760 (defining “move”).10 Second, the specification of the ’689 patent similarly uses these terms in a plain and ordinary sense, without ever attributing to them some sort of special meaning. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:9–12 (“The apparatus 10 is suitable for performing the transfer of aggregate from 10 We reference the original pagination of the dictionary in which these definitions appear. one location to another, such as, for example, from a vehicle carrying the aggregate to a silo 1 for storing the aggregate.”). The ’689 patent specification also makes clear that active conveyance of the aggregate is an option and not a requirement of the claimed invention, stating that the conveyor extension assembly “may further include a conveyor belt 150.” Ex. 1001, 10:60–66 (emphasis added). Limiting claim elements 1[h] and 1[i] to a device “for actively conveying” or “for actively moving aggregate” would improperly import limitations from the specification into the claims. Thus, based on the intrinsic evidence, we determine that claim elements 1h and 1k are properly construed to encompass passive and/or active movement of the aggregate via the conveyor extension assembly.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“Owner asserts” that two claim terms—“unloader structure” and “trailer structure”—should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Solaris submits an express construction detailing the corresponding structure in the specification for performing the recited function of the claimed unloader and trailer structures. See id. at 24–25. Only in disputing Solaris’s Ground 3 does Masaba advocate that the claim term “trailer structure” should be construed under § 112(f), and then only in conjunction with dependent claims 3 and 21. See PO Resp. 58. As such, we address Masaba’s proposed construction in our analysis of Ground 3. We now turn to Solaris’s grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 11,780,689 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,780,689 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00911 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 10 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Toyama because the challenge did not remedy the deficiencies in its nonobvious base claim 8.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’806 patent, and we adopt it for purposes definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we noted that the parties disputed construction of “each local contact” found in dependent claim 10, and “dielectric structure” recited in independent claim 8. Inst. Dec. 8–9. We determine that no express construction of “each local contact” recited in claim 10, or any other claim term, is required to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“independent claim 8 would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in its petition in the 791-IPR. See id. at 1 (stating the present Petition maintains the same grounds set forth in IPR2024-00791). As explained in our Final Written Decision (Ex. 3001) in the 791-IPR issued concurrently, Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 8 would have been obvious over Toyama under any of Petitioner’s three alternative arguments. None of Petitioner’s arguments set forth in the present Petition, including the arguments directed to claim 10, remedy the deficiencies regarding its base claim 8. See Pet. 53–31, 98–101, 124–125; see also Reply. Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth in the Final Written Decision in the 791-IPR issued concurrently, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 8, and therefore dependent claim 10, would have been obvious over Toyama. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”); Ex. 3001.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyNot reached
“Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Jack C. Lee, Ph. D. (Ex. 1003) and the Reply Declaration of Jack C. Lee, Ph.D. (Ex. 1043) in support of its 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the ’806 patent has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013 (Ex. 1001, codes (22), (63)), we refer to the AIA version of Sections 102 and 103. 3 Toyama, US Pub. No. 2017/0179026 A1, published June 22, 2017 (Ex. 1005). 4 Petitioner characterizes its alternative arguments of unpatentability of claim 10 as based on three “grounds.” See Pet. 15. Because each of Petitioner’s arguments are based on the same reference, albeit different embodiments, we characterize Petitioner’s challenges as three alternative arguments based on a single ground because each argument relies on the same reference. Ph.D. (Ex. 2005). Transcripts of the depositions of Dr. Lee (Exs. 2006, 2010) and of Dr. Yang (Ex. 1044) have also been submitted into the record.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 10,937,806 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,937,806 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00909 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Toyama, based on the First Exemplary Structure and, for some limitations, the Second Modification.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the critical time “would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2-3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) NAND 2 We apply AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 to the ’378 patent because it was filed after, and never claimed the benefit of an effective filing date before, March 16, 2013. Petitioner also applies AIA §§ 102 and 103. See Pet. 2, 24–26. 3 Neither party presents evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. Pet. 104; PO Resp. experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience).” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Petitioner further asserts that a POSITA “would also have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about semiconductor manufacturing and 3D NAND’s structure, its component parts, how it operates, and how it is controlled.” Id. Patent Owner does not object to such a definition. PO Resp. 13. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the Specification of the ’378 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner asserts that only the term “a staircase structure in the alternating layer” should be construed, and that the term should be construed as “a staircase structure in the alternating layer stack.” Pet. 32–33. Patent Owner does not dispute this construction, and our determination would be unaffected by Petitioner’s proposed construction. Therefore, we need not provide an express construction of this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Petitioner asserted that all other terms should receive their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 33.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Because neither the language of claim 15 nor the Specification indicates a narrower meaning, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “a substrate with an isolation structure” should be given its plain meaning. Patent Owner argues that the plain meaning of “with” is “having” or “inclusive of.” PO Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1038, 8). Citing the same dictionary, Petitioner argues that the plain meaning of “with” includes objects that are separate. Pet. Reply 3 (stating, “In the sentence ‘Alice went to school with Bob,’ it would be nonsensical to interpret that to mean that Bob is part of Alice.”) (citing Ex. 1038, 7). The cited definition of “with” states that it may indicate “accompaniment,” such as “went there [with] her,” as well as combination (“milk [with] honey”). Ex. 1038, 7. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, we determine that the phrase “a substrate with an isolation structure” should be given its plain meaning, which includes accompaniment (A is accompanied by B) as well as combination (A is part of B, or A and B are a part of C).4” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner that the lower volume of Toyama’s dielectric fill portion teaches the isolation structure and the upper volume of Toyama’s dielectric fill portion teaches the dielectric structure. First, the structure may be the same material; i.e., SiO2. Ex. 1001, 10:37–40 (isolation structure 233 filled with SiO2), 10:46–47 (dielectric structure can include SiO2, and can include the same material as dielectric layer 230), 10:12–14 (dielectric layer 230 is formed of SiO2). Second, the ’378 patent indicates that the dielectric structure may be “aligned to” and “in contact with” the isolation structure. Id. at 10:30–36. Thus, the two structures of the ’378 patent may appear as two aligned and contacting structures; e.g., a single column of the same material. Third, the ’378 patent specification describes that the dielectric structure and a top portion of the isolation structure may be formed in the same deposition step. When etching the opening 600 that is to be filled with dielectric structure 232, “opening 600 may extend partially into STI structure 233;” i.e., “the etch process used to form opening 600 may also remove (recess) portion of the top surface of STI structure 233.” Id. at 15:12–20; Fig. 6. Then, “opening 600 can be filled with a dielectric layer 702,” which may be the same SiO2 material as the isolation structure, and “[a]s a result, dielectric structure 232 is formed.” Id. at 15:42–54. Thus, the ’378 patent describes a dielectric structure that partially replaces or re-forms, with the same material, its isolation structure. The ’378 patent does not mention whether this results in a dielectric structure that extends into the isolation structure or an isolation structure re-filled to its original height, and it would not appear to matter because both structures may be composed of the same material. The ’378 patent’s indifference to the exact boundary between dielectric structure 232 and isolation structure 233 during formation from the same material indicates that these structures need not be taught by distinct elements. applicable only if the ’378 patent describes that the isolation region and dielectric structure were formed as a single unitary structure. PO Resp. 51; PO Sur-reply 16–18. Retractable Techs. focuses on whether the two elements at issue “could be formed as an integral structure in the first instance,” not whether they were formed integrally. Retractable Techs., 653 F.3d at 1304 (“The specifications further disclose a method to couple the two structures . . . to allow some diffusion or insipient melting to occur where they touch . . . . This passage suggests that [the structures] could be formed as an integral structure in the first instance”). Retractable Techs. looks to whether the specification suggests that the claim terms require separate structures. Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Patent Owner’s focus on whether the claimed structures were disclosed as being separately formed disregards the issue of whether the separately claimed structures require specific methods of forming those structures. Here, as in Retractable Techs. and Powell, the Specification does not indicate any particular structure or function for the structures that results from their separate steps of deposition. Thus, as held in Retractable Techs. and Powell, the two portions of Toyama “need not be two separate parts” to teach two separate claim limitations. Retractable Techs., 635 F.3d at 1303–04. Consequently, we determine that the claim language does not support a requirement that these structures be separate and distinct. Patent Owner’s further arguments are not availing. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, in our “Third” point, supra, we do not state that the isolation structure and the dielectric structure are formed in the same deposition step. PO Resp. 52–53; PO Sur-reply 18; Supra at 34. We only” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,658,378 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,658,378 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00788 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Toyama, Mushiga, and Mushiga with Makala.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at the critical time “would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2-3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) NAND flash memory devices, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience).” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–37). Petitioner further asserts March 16, 2013. Petitioner also applies AIA §§ 102 and 103. See Pet. 2, 24–26. 3 Neither party presented evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness during trial. knowledgeable about semiconductor manufacturing and 3D NAND’s structure, its component parts, how it operates, and how it is controlled.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not object to this assessment. PO Resp. 12. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’378 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s construction, asserting that its grounds render obvious this limitation under Patent Owner’s construction propose construction of the term “through array contact,” which was at issue in the Preliminary Response and in the parallel district court proceeding. Id. Nor have the parties indicated, in response to Board inquiry, that any relevant construction has occurred. See Paper 34. with Petitioner that Patent Owner does not dispute this aspect of the “a dielectric structure on the isolation structure” limitation in Petitioner’s assertions based on Toyama. PO Sur-reply 20–21. Patent Owner does dispute that Mushiga’s insulating spacer 586 is “on” the isolation structure. PO Resp. 70–72. However, because Petitioner relies upon a dielectric structure that includes other portions of Mushiga that Patent Owner does not dispute to be on the asserted isolation structure, the dispute is whether Petitioner is correct to include multiple components as part of a single dielectric structure, and not whether spacer 586 is on an isolation structure. Id. Because Petitioner’s assertions and our determination would be unaffected by its proposed construction, we need not construe this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s citations to the Specification do not support its proposed construction. Patent Owner relies on multiple embodiments, only one of which describes a substrate “with” an isolation structure. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 22:27–28). For example, one of Patent Owner’s cited embodiments recites “on” an isolation region, but Patent Owner specifically argues that the “on” embodiment does not apply to the claimed “with” embodiment. Id. at 22 (denying that “the ‘with’ relationship encompasse[s] the ‘on’ relationship”). Only one of the embodiments cited is clearly within the scope of the “with” claim language, and that embodiment describes no more than the claim language itself. Ex. 1001, 22:27–28. Moreover, Figure 2, cited by Patent Owner, is an illustration “according to some embodiments,” but is not described as depicting all embodiments. Ex. 1001, 3:35–36. These other embodiments need not be included in claim 15’s “with” language because other claims (not at issue in this proceeding) specifically recite language from other embodiments. Ex. 1001, 23:20–21 (“a dielectric structure on an isolation region of the substrate”), 23:58 (“forming an isolation structure on a substrate”). Thus, the specification of the ’378 patent does not limit “a substrate with an isolation structure” in claim 15 to “part of” an isolation structure, such as in a shallow region or other partial-depth portion of the substrate. Because neither the language of claim 15 nor the Specification indicates a narrower meaning, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “a Patent Owner argues that the plain meaning of “with” is “having” or “inclusive of.” PO Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1038, 7). Citing the same dictionary, Petitioner argues that the plain meaning of “with” includes objects that are separate. Pet. Reply 3 (stating, “In the sentence ‘Alice went to school with Bob,’ it would be nonsensical to interpret that to mean that Bob is part of Alice.”) (citing Ex. 1038, 7). The cited definition of “with” states that it may indicate “accompaniment,” such as “went there [with] her,” as well as combination (“milk [with] honey”). Ex. 1038, 7. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, we determine that the phrase “a substrate with an isolation structure” should be given its plain meaning, which includes accompaniment (A is accompanied by B) as well as combination (A is part of B, or A and B are a part of C).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner that the lower volume of Toyama’s dielectric fill portion teaches the isolation structure and the upper volume of Toyama’s dielectric fill portion teaches the dielectric structure. First, the ’378 patent indicates that both the dielectric structure and the isolation structure may be the same material; i.e., SiO2. Ex. 1001, 10:37–40 (isolation structure 233 filled with SiO2), 10:46–47 (dielectric structure can include SiO2, and can include the same material as dielectric layer 230), 10:12–14 (dielectric layer 230 is formed of SiO2). Second, the ’378 patent indicates that the dielectric structure may be “aligned to” and “in contact with” the isolation structure. Id. at 10:30–36. Thus, the two structures of the ’378 patent may appear as two aligned and contacting structures; e.g., a single column, of the same material. Third, the ’378 patent specification describes that the dielectric structure and a top portion of the isolation structure may be formed in the same deposition step. When etching the opening 600 that is to be filled with dielectric structure 232, “opening 600 may extend partially into STI structure 233;” i.e., “the etch process used to form opening 600 may also remove (recess) portion of the top surface of STI structure 233.” Id. at 15:12–20. Then, “opening 600 can be filled with a dielectric layer 702,” which may be the same SiO2 material as the isolation structure, and “[a]s a result, dielectric structure 232 is formed.” Id. at 15:42–54. Thus, the ’378 patent describes a dielectric structure that partially replaces or re-forms, with the same material, its isolation structure. The ’378 patent does not mention whether this results in a dielectric structure that extends into the isolation structure or an isolation structure re-filled to its original height, and it would material. The ’378 patent’s indifference to the exact boundary between dielectric structure 232 and isolation structure 233 during formation from the same material indicates that these need not be taught by distinct elements. We do not agree with Patent Owner that Retractable Techs. is applicable only if the ’378 patent describes that the isolation region and dielectric structure were formed as a single unitary structure. PO Resp. 50; PO Sur-reply 9. Retractable Techs. focuses on whether the two elements at issue “could be formed as an integral structure in the first instance,” not whether they were formed integrally. Retractable Techs., 653 F.3d at 1304. (“The specifications further disclose a method to couple the two structures . . . to allow some diffusion or insipient melting to occur where they touch . . . . This passage suggests that [the structures] could be formed as an integral structure in the first instance”). Retractable Techs. looks to whether the specification suggests that the claim terms require separate structures. Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Patent Owner’s focus on whether the claimed structures were disclosed as being separately formed disregards the issue of whether the separately claimed structures require specific methods of forming those structures. Here, as in Retractable Techs. and Powell, the Specification does not indicate any particular structure or function for the structures that results from their separate steps of deposition. Thus, as held in Retractable Techs. and Powell, the two portions of Toyama “need not be two separate parts” to teach two separate claim limitations. Retractable Techs., 635 F.3d at 1303– 04. Consequently, we determine that the claim language does not support a requirement that these structures be separate and distinct.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,658,378 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,658,378 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-01078 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–22, and 24–30, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kido anticipates at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless. . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“At this juncture in the proceeding, and based on the current record, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “payout,” as claimed, should be limited to “the amount a player will win in relation to the amount wagered.” We recognize, as Patent Owner points out, that the examples provided in the Specification are listed in odds format. See id. at 2. The Specification, however, also states that “[a]ny suitable payouts can be used in some embodiments.” Ex. 1011, 5:18–21. This language suggests a broader interpretation of “payout” beyond just payout odds and we therefore decline to import the wager limitation into the claim term. Although the ’371 patent generally describes payouts in terms of odds, like 49:1, the intrinsic record lacks clear evidence necessary to limit the claims as Patent Owner proposes.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes “a person having at least a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering, or undergraduate training in an equivalent field and at least two years of relevant experience in electronic gaming technology.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–26). Petitioner further notes that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (“Evolution does not set forth an alternative level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which comports with the teachings of the ’371 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Based on the evidence before us, we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that Kido’s accumulated jackpot paid when landing on a star mark reads on the claimed “a first selected position . . . to have an increased payout . . . greater than a first non-selected payout.” See Pet. 25–27, 30, 35, 36. As explained above, the current record does not support limiting the term “payout” to just the amount a player will win in relation to the amount wagered. As Petitioner notes, a payout that receives Kido’s accumulated Prog bonus payout is necessarily higher than a payout that does not receive the Prog bonus. Pet. 35–36 (“had the first selected position not been randomly selected, the player would only be eligible for the basic payout”). Further, Kido even describes its bonus routines and jackpots as payouts. Kido describes, for example, that “[w]hen the privilege unit 113 obtains the win information from the special game value award mark win determining unit 112, it awards, as a payout, the game value stored in the accumulated game value memory 117” and it describes the “jackpot (JP) amount” as “a special payout.” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 119, 129.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,756,371 - PTAB · Nov 6, 2025 · PGR2025-00040 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–9, 11–33, and 35–38 on all petition grounds, finding it more likely than not that Hassfjell-Hoff anticipates at least claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the ’437 patent is eligible for post-grant review and that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’437 patent is unpatentable under § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of all challenged claims of the ’437 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Here, Patentee Sciencons AS filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 10 and 34 of the ’437 patent. Ex. 2001; Prelim. Resp. 43. Based on our review of Exhibit 2001 and the Office’s public records, we find that the disclaimer of claims 10 and 34 complies with the above-listed requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Accordingly, we treat claims 10 and 34 as having never been part of the ’437 patent. See Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“This court has interpreted the term ‘considered as part of the original patent’ in [35 U.S.C.] § 253 to mean that the patent is treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed.”). Because post-grant review cannot be instituted based on disclaimed claims, claims 10 and 34 are outside the scope of this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) (“No post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); General Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (denying institution in view of a statutory disclaimer of all the challenged claims). Thus, we confine our analysis in this Decision to claims 1–9, 11–33, and 35– 38, the remaining challenged claims that have not been disclaimed.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityGranted
“Sciencons AS also states that ARTBIO, Inc. is responsible for defending the ’437 patent in this proceeding and requests that ARTBIO, Inc. be included in the caption for this proceeding.2 Paper 4, 1. ARTBIO, Inc. has signed powers of attorney appointing the same practitioners that were appointed by Sciencons AS to transact all business associated with the instant post-grant review review of the ’437 patent. See Paper 3. To date, no objection has been raised to Patent Owner’s request. Given Sciencons AS’s representation that ARTBIO, Inc. is currently the exclusive licensee of the ’437 patent and is responsible for defending the ’437 patent, we grant Sciencons AS’s unopposed request that ARTBIO, Inc. be included in the caption. For convenience we refer to Sciencons AS and the purported exclusive licensee ARTBIO, Inc. collectively as “Patent Owner.” As stated supra, to the extent any party disputes ARTBIO, Inc.’s right to participate in this proceeding or to be included in the caption, the party shall request authorization to brief the issue within 10 business days of this Decision.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“nuclear chemistry, radiochemistry, or materials science, or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with radioisotope generators, radiopharmaceutical chemistry, nuclear medicine, or other relevant industry experience” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 1019 ¶ 27). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition nor provide a proposed definition of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 12,249,437 - Advancell Pty Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · PGR2025-00029 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–6 and 8–20 on all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After reviewing the parties’ briefs and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Hassfjell-Hoff discloses each element of claim 1. As such, Petitioner’s argument and evidence as set forth above and further discussed below, sufficiently shows that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is anticipated by Hassfjell-Hoff, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, also addressed below.” slip op. at 16
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Here, Patentee Sciencons AS filed a statutory disclaimer of claim 7 of the ’603 patent. Ex. 2001. Based on our review of Exhibit 2001 and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office public records, we find that the disclaimer of claim 7 complies with the above-listed requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Accordingly, we treat claim 7 as having never been part of the ’603 patent. See Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“This court has interpreted the term ‘considered as part of the original patent’ in [35 U.S.C.] § 253 to mean that the patent is treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed.”). Because post-grant review cannot be instituted based on disclaimed claims, claim 7 is outside the scope of this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) (“No post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); General Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (denying institution in view of a statutory disclaimer of all the challenged claims). Thus, we confine our analysis in this Decision to claims 1–6 and 8– 20, the remaining challenged claims that have not been disclaimed.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityGranted
“Sciencons AS also states that ARTBIO, Inc. is responsible for defending the ’603 patent in this proceeding and requests that ARTBIO, Inc. be included in the caption for this proceeding.2 Paper 4, 1; Paper 7, 1. ARTBIO, Inc. has signed powers of attorney appointing the same practitioners that were appointed by Sciencons AS to transact all business associated with the instant post-grant review proceeding of the ’603 patent. See Papers 3, 4, 7, 8. To date, no objection has been raised to Patent Owner’s request. Given Sciencons AS’s representation that ARTBIO, Inc. is currently the exclusive licensee of the ’603 patent and is responsible for defending the ’603 patent, we grant Sciencons AS’s unopposed request that ARTBIO, Inc. be included in the caption. For convenience we refer to Sciencons AS and the purported exclusive licensee ARTBIO, Inc. collectively as “Patent Owner.” As stated supra, to the extent any party disputes ARTBIO, Inc.’s right to participate in this proceeding or to be included in the caption, the party shall request authorization to brief the issue within 10 business days of this Decision.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, physics, nuclear chemistry, radiochemistry, or materials science, or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with radioisotope generators, or other relevant industry experience” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 1017 ¶ 27). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition nor provide a proposed definition of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 12,125,603 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00795 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 and 11–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Lee or Zhao and Lee; the Board did not find claims unpatentable over Zhao or Yang alone.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the critical time would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2-3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) NAND memory devices (including issues relating to the operation, e.g., programming, of said devices), or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience). Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–38). Petitioner further asserts that a POSITA “would have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about NAND memory’s structure, its component parts, how it operates, and how it is controlled. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not object to this assertion. PO Resp. 12. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’822 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“1. Word line pre-pulse signal Patent Owner argues that such a signal “must increase in value and then decrease in value (or vice versa).” PO Resp. 13; PO Sur-Reply 1. Petitioner agrees with this construction. Pet. Reply. 3. Patent Owner further argues that the pre-pulse signal “prepares the word line before the programming step.” PO Resp. 13. We agree that Petitioner applies its teachings with the same understanding of “pre-pulse signal” as Patent Owner. See, e.g., Pet. 38–39 (asserting that Lee teaches, or that that Lee would make obvious, pre-bias signals applied as pulses). Because both parties agree that a pre-pulse signal “must increase in value and then decrease in value (or vice versa),” and apply this construction in their assertions and arguments, no dispute as to the meaning of this phrase exists in a manner that would affect the outcome of this decision. Therefore, we do not need to determine a particular construction. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“with the plain language of the claims, each claim states “disposed.” Patent Owner provides dictionary definitions for “disposed,” which is described as a verb. See, e.g., Ex. 2016, 3. When described as a verb in these definitions, “disposed” is the action of the actor; i.e., “the chief disposed his attendants in a circle” (Ex. 2019, 3); “She disposed of her estate among her heirs” (Ex. 2018, 3); “disposed of the matter efficiently” (Ex. 2017, 3); “troops disposed for withdrawal” (Ex. 2016, 3). Petitioner offers no contrary definition from either the Specification or any extrinsic source for that term. We agree with Patent Owner’s construction of “disposed” as “put in place” or “arranged in a particular position.” Nevertheless, the construction of “disposed” does not resolve the controversy over the language of claims 2, 3, 12, and 13. The claims recite “are disposed.” For example, claim 2 recites, “wherein the [first through third groups] of the plurality of word lines are disposed in an order of distance from the selected word line.” Under Patent Owner’s construction, this reads as, “wherein the [first through third groups] of the plurality of word lines are arranged in a particular position in an order of distance from the selected word line.” But claim 2 does not recite that the word lines are arranged “based on” the selected word line, or that the arrangement occurs only after a word line is selected, as argued by Patent Owner. We agree with Petitioner that the express language of claim 2 does not recite any limitation as to how or when the groups of word lines are disposed. Both parties point to the same language in the ’822 patent Specification in support of their position: “the word lines disposed between the selected word line and the top select gate TSG can be divided into multiple groups of the word lines.” PO Sur-Reply 2 (citing Pet. Reply 11 requires the recited arrangement to exist, at some point. But we determine that none of claims 2, 3, 12, or 13 require a step of arrangement, or an action to change the arrangement of grouped word lines.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“not based on the location of the source or bit lines. Instead, Petitioner relies upon the distance from the selected word line and the drain-side of the string. See Pet. 66 (“the channel length between the drain-side of the string and word line selected for programming would be quite long, resulting in a relatively high channel resistance” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 360)). Petitioner asserts that Lee’s application of higher pre-charge voltages to the drain-side word lines “offset the channel resistance effect.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 361). Lee and Zhao both admittedly have “typical memory strings, which are a ‘vertical column’ of memory cells arranged in series between a source side select transistor and a drain side transistor.” PO Resp. 53 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner asserts that applying pre-charging to mitigate program disturb (sought by both Lee and Zhao) relies on the creation of a potential difference to facilitate electron redistribution. Pet. Reply 17–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:52–56; Ex. 1005, 17:4–12; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 72–78). Petitioner asserts that the application of voltage can be performed from either end of the channel so long as it targets the portion of the channel desired to be pre- charged. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 77–78; Ex. 1010, 17:16–23). Although Patent Owner points to Yang as showing different “biasing schemes” based upon whether the bit line, source line, or both are used for pre-charging, each of the cited Figures 8–10 of Yang indicates that Vbypass (Yang’s uncontested pre-pulse signal) is applied to at least some word lines between the selected word line and the drain-side SGD0. Ex. 1010, Figs. 8C, 9C, 10C; see PO Resp. 25–28 (“a ‘bypass voltage’ (‘Vbypass’) is applied to ‘not yet programmed’ memory cells during the ‘pre-charge phase’” (citing Fig. 8C) (emphasis omitted)). We do not discern in Patent Owner’s arguments, or in the evidence provided during trial, sufficient reasons why applying voltage from either source or bit line disturbs Petitioner’s asserted advantage of offsetting the resistance of the channel between a selected word line and the drain side of the string. Patent Owner further argues that Lee discusses a “wholly disparate approach” for mitigating program disturb than Zhao and that a POSITA would not have been motivated to apply Lee’s teaching to Zhao. PO Resp. 56–58. Patent Owner contends that because Zhao does not conduct current when applying its bypass voltage to equalize charges, but Lee does conduct current when doing so, Lee need only compensate for insufficient charge boosting due to the increased resistance component between source and drain and does not need to compensate for “resistance” effects creating voltage differences along the length of the memory string channel. Id. at 56. Dr. Przybylski’s supporting testimony is based upon such differences in the resistance components. See, e.g., Ex. 2011 ¶ 128. However, we have credited Dr. Liu’s testimony that a chain of transistors in both systems creates a resistance effect regardless of current flow in the steady state. Supra § II.F.1.b.2. We further agree with Petitioner that applying pre- on the creation of a potential difference to facilitate electron redistribution. Pet. Reply 17–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:52–56; Ex. 1005, 17:4–12; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 72–78). We further credit Dr. Liu’s testimony that Zhao’s use of the same pre-charge voltages to not-yet-programmed word lines presents an issue of inadequate pre-charging that Lee addresses. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 55–56; Pet. Reply 22–23. Consequently, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the chain resistance effects in Zhao and Lee permit the application of Lee’s method of pre-charging to mitigate program disturb to be applicable and desirable in Zhao’s method of applying pre-charging to mitigate program disturb. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has shown persuasive motivation for its combination.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 11,501,822 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,501,822
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.