Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

I'll research this case. Note upfront that the docket metadata describes a PTAB post-grant review, not a district court infringement suit — I'll verify the related litigation landscape as part of the research.

Good material. Let me dig into the final written decision reports, the parallel district court litigation, and the parties' identities.

Case Overview: Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd., PGR2025-00021

A threshold framing note: the docket metadata describes a PTAB post-grant review, not a district court infringement action. Micron is the Petitioner challenging YMTC's patent; YMTC is the Patent Owner. The "plaintiff/defendant" labels in the case header are therefore a loose fit — the actual infringement litigation runs the opposite direction (YMTC sues Micron), and the PGR is Micron's counter-punch.

1. The parties and the technology

Micron Technology, Inc. (Boise, ID) is one of the world's largest memory manufacturers — DRAM, NAND, and NOR — and a direct competitor to YMTC in 3D NAND flash. In this proceeding it is the petitioner seeking cancellation of YMTC's claims; in the related district court cases it is the accused infringer and a declaratory-judgment plaintiff. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. ("YMTC") is China's leading 3D NAND flash maker, founded in July 2016 out of Tsinghua Unigroup with backing from Chinese state funds including the "Big Fund" (National IC Industry Investment Fund), headquartered in Wuhan, with a fab plan of ~300,000 wafers/month and roughly $24B in planned investment (L'Usine Nouvelle). Despite its scale and its "Xtacking" architecture, YMTC was added to the Commerce Department's BIS Entity List on December 15, 2022 (after an October 2022 Unverified List placement), which sharply limited its access to U.S. equipment and effectively foreclosed meaningful U.S. sales (Reuters). YMTC is not an NPE — it is a genuine operating manufacturer — but Korean trade press notes that because Entity List restrictions make U.S. commercialization impractical, YMTC operates in U.S. litigation in a functionally "NPE-like" enforcement posture (ZDNet Korea). That posture is the key structural fact: a sanctioned foreign operating company monetizing a large patent portfolio against a U.S. competitor.

2. The patent, the grounds, and the procedural posture

The sole patent in this PGR is U.S. Patent No. 12,010,838 B2, "Staircase Structure for Memory Device," issued June 11, 2024, with an August 2017 effective filing date. The '838 patent claims a 3D NAND wordline staircase structure — the terraced contact region that lets vertical interconnects land on individual wordlines in a stacked memory array. The claimed novelty is a specific landing-pad geometry: a first material layer disposed over a first portion of a second material layer; a landing pad over a second portion; the pad's first side surface in contact with the first material layer and its second side surface laterally displaced from the side surface of the underlying conductive layer (see '838 Fig. 8; independent claims 1 and 12). The specification touts "yield and manufacturing cost improvements." Micron challenges claims 1, 3–7, and 12–20 on five grounds, the principal ones being obviousness over Kim (U.S. 10,229,929); Kim in view of Yang (U.S. 9,941,153) for the 10–300 nm lateral-displacement dependent claims 3 and 18 (Yang teaching a 20–190 nm setback); and Lee (U.S. 2014/0191389) (Petition/grounds summary; POPR). YMTC's Preliminary Response attacked Grounds 1 and 3 as mischaracterizing Kim's and Lee's structures and relying on hindsight labeling, and separately argued the grounds lean on expert testimony rather than the art itself.

Procedurally, the case exists because of a statutory timing trap. Micron filed IPR2025-00229 in November 2024 but the '838 patent issued June 11, 2024, so the IPR was premature under 35 U.S.C. § 311(c); Micron filed this PGR on January 6, 2025 on identical claims and grounds as a safety net, ranked the PGR first, and the Board terminated the IPR on June 12, 2025 (Micron v. YMTC, IPR2025-00229, Paper 14; panel of APJs Kokoski, McGraw, Cygan) (Casemine). YMTC sought Fintiv-style discretionary denial; on June 25, 2025, Acting Deputy Chief APJ Kalyan K. Deshpande (then-Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recused) denied the request, reasoning that the parallel district court case is stayed, that the parties' pre-stay investment was outweighed by the early timing of the challenges, and that "early challenges favor robust, predictable patent rights" (Paper 21, covering IPR2025-00190/-00191/-00228/-00244/-00245 and this PGR). The Board then instituted PGR on September 2, 2025. The trial ran a full course: Patent Owner Response (Nov. 25, 2025), Petitioner Reply (Feb. 17, 2026), Sur-Reply (Mar. 31, 2026), request for oral argument (Apr. 21, 2026), and an oral hearing in May 2026 (PTAB case docket). Petitioner's expert is Dr. Jack C. Lee; Patent Owner's is Dr. Konstantinos P. Giapis. Petitioner's counsel is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (K. Patrick Herman, lead; Jeremy Jason Lang; Jared Bobrow); Patent Owner's PTAB counsel of record is Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman (Chicago), with Latham & Watkins (Inge Osman, Brenda Danek) handling the discretionary-denial briefing and Ropes & Gray in district court. Venue matters less here than in a district case — the PTAB sits in Alexandria, VA — but it matters enormously in the linked litigation: YMTC filed first in Micron's home forum, N.D. Cal., before later adding E.D. Tex.

3. Related litigation and why this case is notable

The PGR is one front in a much larger multi-jurisdictional war. YMTC sued Micron in N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-05792 (Judge Rita F. Lin) on November 9, 2023, asserting eight 3D NAND patents (U.S. 10,950,623; 11,501,822; 10,658,378; 10,937,806; 10,861,872; 11,468,957; 11,600,342; 10,868,031) against Micron's 96L, 128L, 176L, and 232L 3D NAND chips and DDR5 DRAM (complaint/docket). A second N.D. Cal. suit (July 2024) added 11 patents; an E.D. Tex. suit (October 2025) added 8 more against Micron and distributor Avnet; both N.D. Cal. cases are stayed. YMTC's own July 29, 2026 statement put the total at 27 patents and 295 claims, still pending. Micron's counter-strategy is systematic: 19 YMTC patents challenged at the PTAB (IPR/PGR) and 8 more pushed into ex parte reexamination (EPR) — with reporting indicating 7 patents invalidated and 12 sustained as of early September 2026 (ChinaFlashMarket; 財報狗). Notably, several news outlets (ZDNet Korea, Sept. 6, 2026; ChinaFlashMarket, Sept. 7, 2026) report that the Board held the '838 claims unpatentable on September 2, 2026 — which would make this Micron's seventh PTAB win and would contradict the "Pending – Instituted" status in the case metadata. I could not confirm a final written decision directly on the PTAB docket or in a primary source; treat this as reported-but-unverified. YMTC would be expected to appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Why it is notable beyond the parties: (1) It is a test bed for the PTAB's newest discretionary-denial regime, coming amid the USPTO's 2025–26 tightening of institution practice and expanded Director review under Director John Squires. (2) The mirror-image YMTC petitions produced the first director-level decision addressing foreign state ownership: after YMTC's IPRs against Micron's U.S. 8,945,996 and 10,872,903 were instituted in June 2025, then stayed in August 2025 on RPI/state-control "novel issues," Director Squires issued a show-cause order in November 2025 and in January 2026 vacated institution and denied the petitions for failure to identify all real parties in interest — given evidence that YMTC's parent is wholly Chinese state-owned — while expressly leaving open whether a foreign sovereign is a "person" who may petition under Return Mail v. USPS (Barnes & Thornburg; MLex). YMTC appealed; the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal on June 15, 2026, making this the likely vehicle for appellate guidance on foreign-sovereign PTAB access. (3) Geopolitically, it has become a flashpoint: Chinese commentators characterize the USPTO's handling as "weaponizing legal institutions" under a national-security banner, and the dispute now spans the N.D. Cal., E.D. Tex., D.D.C. (YMTC's Lanham Act "China Tech Threat" false-advertising suit against Micron and DCI Group, No. 1:25-cv-01795 (CJN), dismissed August 13, 2026 on the ground that the challenged publications were political, not commercial, speech), plus China (Shanghai and Beijing IP Courts), the UK High Court, and the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division. (4) Commercially, the '838 staircase patent sits on core high-layer-count 3D NAND manufacturing know-how at the center of the AI-era memory boom, so its validity outcome bears on Micron's freedom to operate and on YMTC's remaining leverage in the U.S. market.

Sourcing caveats: the September 2, 2026 final written decision rests on secondhand Korean/Chinese/Taiwanese trade-press reports and was not located on the PTAB docket during this research; claim- and ground-level details for Grounds 4 and 5 (Patent Owner's POPR refers to five grounds total) were not fully verified; and the specific identity of the institution panel in PGR2025-00021 was not confirmed. Everything else above is grounded in the petition papers, the PTAB docket, the June 25, 2025 discretionary-denial decision, and cited press reporting.

I'll research this case carefully. Note upfront: the case metadata identifies PGR2025-00021, which is a PTAB post-grant review — an administrative proceeding, not a district court infringement suit. I'll verify the details and also map the related district court litigation and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Key finding: the identified case is a PTAB post-grant review, and the docket shows activity into mid-2026, including a possible final written decision. Let me dig into the merits phase, the institution decision, and the parallel district court litigation.

Now let me verify the merits outcome and research the parallel district court litigation chronology.

Threshold point: the case number identifies a PTAB trial, not a district court suit

PGR2025-00021 is a post-grant review before the PTAB — an administrative validity trial. There is no complaint, answer, Markman order, jury, or JMOL in this docket. What does exist is a district court infringement action between the same parties (Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-05792-RFL, consolidated with 3:24-cv-04223-RFL) that the PGR was filed to influence — and which the district court stayed. I map your requested categories onto both tracks below, flagging where a category simply does not exist.

Case metadata (authoritative): patent US 12,010,838 B2, "Staircase Structure for Memory Device," inventors Lu et al., assignee YMTC, app. 17/447,456, PCT/CN2018/098962 priority chain with CN priority 2017-08-28, issued 2024-06-11. Challenged claims 1, 3–7, 12–20. Panel: APJs Jo-Anne M. Kokoski, Kimberly McGraw, Michael T. Cygan.

Counsel: Petitioner Micron — Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (K. Patrick Herman, lead, Reg. 75,018; Jeremy Jason Lang; Travis Jensen; Jared Bobrow, pro hac vice). Patent Owner YMTC — Latham & Watkins (Inge A. Osman, lead, Reg. 74,480; Brenda L. Danek; Kevin Wheeler; Thomas W. Yeh; Steven W. Peters; Clement Naples, later withdrawn). (Note: YMTC's district court counsel of record in the N.D. Cal. case was Ropes & Gray per the PGR certificate of service — a different team from the Latham PTAB team.)

---

A. Chronology — PGR2025-00021 (the identified case)

Asserted grounds (all § 103): (1) claims 1, 4–7, 12–17, 19–20 over Kim (US 10,229,929); (2) claims 3, 18 over Kim + Yang (US 9,941,153); (3) claims 1, 4–7, 12, 16–17, 19–20 over Lee (US 2014/0191389); (4) claims 3, 18 over Lee + Haller (US 9,520,402); (5) claims 13–15 over Lee + Park (US 10,297,543). Micron also argued the '838 patent's effective filing date is 2017-08-28 (Lee deposition confirmed this was the sole date analyzed).

The outcome, and a sourcing caveat

Multiple trade-press reports dated 2026-09-06/07 state the USPTO/PTAB ruled on 2026-09-02 that the '838 patent is invalid, and that YMTC is expected to appeal to the Federal Circuit:

• ZDNet Korea, 2026-09-06: "마이크론, YMTC 특허 7번째 무효 판단"
• ChinaFlashMarket, 2026-09-07; and StatementDog (TW), 2026-09-08, both reporting the same ruling.

This 2026-09-02 date is exactly the 12-month statutory FWD deadline from the 2025-09-02 institution, and GreyB's tracker shows a 2026-09-02 entry for the case — so the report is credible. However, I could not retrieve the final written decision document itself or a USPTO/Law360 primary confirmation, and the reports are trade-press summaries in Korean/Chinese. Treat "all challenged claims cancelled" as reported but not independently verified; the scope (all claims vs. a subset) is the main open question. The metadata status "Pending – Instituted" reflects the case as of the most recent structured docket snapshot, i.e., pre-FWD.

---

B. The parallel district court infringement litigation (your requested categories live here)

Filings / pleadings (chronological):

• 2023-11-09 — YMTC files the first N.D. Cal. complaint (3:23-cv-05792-RFL), asserting 8 patents against Micron over 3D NAND products; assigned to Judge Rita F. Lin. Micron answered and counterclaimed (YMTC is captioned in the PTAB papers as "Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant").
• 2024-07-12 — YMTC files a second complaint (3:24-cv-04223-RFL), asserting 11 more patents; consolidated with the first case. Combined: 19 patents asserted in N.D. Cal.
• 2024-09-18 — Case schedule minute order (Dkt. 141).
• 2024-10-02 — YMTC's "YMTC II" asserted claims and infringement contentions.
• 2025-10 — Micron files a Declaratory Judgment Act action (28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.) in N.D. Cal. seeking a declaration of non-infringement of the 8 patents YMTC asserted in Texas, calling YMTC's enforcement "non-credible" over "facially invalid patents" (per MLex, 2025-11-14).
• 2025 (summer) — YMTC also sues Micron in the D.D.C. for false advertising over Micron statements that YMTC flash could be used "to spy on millions of Americans."

Pre-trial motion of substance — the stay (the pivotal event for the district case):

• 2025-03-04 — Hearing on Micron's motion to stay pending IPR/PGR before Judge Lin. Micron argued: discovery was in its "early stages," no depositions, no claim construction briefs, no Markman hearing, no expert reports, no dispositive motions, and trial was ~17 months out; 7 of 8 patents from wave one had been instituted (FWDs beginning October 2025), and all but one asserted patent was covered by instituted or pending PTAB petitions challenging 202 of 232 asserted claims. (Motion text)
• Result: the N.D. Cal. case was stayed — confirmed both by the 2025-06-25 Director decision ("the district court proceeding involving the challenged patents has been stayed") and by MLex ("now stayed").

Claim construction (Markman): None occurred. The stay issued before claim construction briefing; Micron's March 2025 brief affirmatively represents that no claim construction briefs, hearing, or order existed. So there is no Markman outcome to report on the '838 patent.

Discovery milestones of strategic significance: all on the PTAB side — the Lee (2025-10-30 and 2026-03-25) and Giapis depositions, the 2047 exhibit set, and Micron's sealing motion for Ex. 1078 (a FUS/prior-art or commercial document). District court fact discovery was curtailed by the stay.

Trial / verdict / JMOL / fees: none — the case was stayed before trial.

Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal: no settlement and no judgment in the N.D. Cal. case; it remains stayed pending PTAB outcomes. The only appellate activity in the U.S. is in the PTAB track (below).

---

C. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

Micron's offensive campaign against YMTC's portfolio:

• Per YMTC's 2025 discretionary-denial brief: Micron filed 26 petitions challenging 251 claims across 19 YMTC patents; YMTC emphasized that "fewer than a third of all challenged claims are presently asserted" in district court — including only 4 of the 15 claims challenged in PGR2025-00021 — and that the court had ordered streamlining to 8 claims at trial from 19 asserted patents.
• As of September 2026 reports: of the 27 YMTC patents asserted in three U.S. suits, Micron filed IPR/PGR against 19 and EPR (Director-initiated/expedited reexamination) against the remaining 8. Score: 7 of 19 patents invalidated (including '838), 12 still "valid" in the sense of not instituted or sustained (fully or partly). One of the 8 EPR requests was denied; 7 were ordered into reexamination.

YMTC's counter-campaign against Micron's patents (national-security flashpoint):

• June 2025 — PTAB panels instituted YMTC's IPRs against Micron's US 8,945,996 and US 10,872,903.
• August 2025 — Senior Lead APJ Michelle N. Ankenbrand (delegated director review) stayed those institutions, citing "novel issues" raised by Micron that YMTC is state-controlled.
• 2025-11-10 (approx.) — Director John Squires issued an order to show cause leaving the stay in place, singling out YMTC's placement on the BIS Entity List and giving YMTC 14 days to explain "why adjudicating petitions filed by such a designated entity is an appropriate use of the Office's limited resources." (MLex, 2025-11-14)
• January 2026 — Director Review decision (Director Squires) vacated institution and denied both YMTC petitions, on failure to identify all real parties in interest under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2): YMTC's parent, Yangtze Memory Technologies Holding Co., is wholly owned by Chinese SOEs; YMTC's "mere investor" response was insufficient. The decision also flagged, without deciding, whether a foreign sovereign is a "person" who may petition under the AIA (Return Mail v. USPS), and noted YMTC's unrebutted Entity List status. (Barnes & Thornburg analysis)
• 2026-06-15 — Federal Circuit dockets Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. v. Micron Technology, Inc., the appeal from those Director Review decisions — potentially the first appellate guidance on RPI disclosure and foreign-state-entity access to the PTAB.

Effect on the litigation: the PTAB proceedings drove the stay of the N.D. Cal. case (which in turn was the linchpin of the Director's refusal to discretionarily deny institution in PGR2025-00021 — a tight feedback loop). Cancellation of '838 claims would eliminate those claims from the stayed litigation; conversely, the June 2025 FWDs, the Squires RPI/sovereign rulings, and any Federal Circuit decision on the YMTC-owned-micron-patent appeals are the events most likely to unstick the stay. Trade press reports YMTC is appealing the '838 invalidation and that Micron has appealed adverse rulings on YMTC patents it failed to invalidate.

Other fora (per MLex, 2025-11-14): Micron has also faced YMTC infringement claims in the E.D. Tex., the Shanghai and Beijing IP Courts, the UK High Court (Patents Court), and the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC — so the '838 PGR is one node in a multi-jurisdictional campaign, and the Chinese proceedings run on a separate track with different commercial stakes (Micron faced a 2023 Chinese cybersecurity review finding and procurement suspensions).

---

D. Present posture (as of 2026-09-10)

1. PGR2025-00021: on paper still "Pending – Instituted," but trade press reports a 2026-09-02 final written decision invalidating the '838 patent — right at the 12-month statutory deadline from the 2025-09-02 institution. Not yet independently verified against the FWD document. YMTC's expected Federal Circuit appeal would follow within 63 days.
2. IPR2025-00229 (the companion '838 IPR): terminated 2025-06-12 as untimely — so the PGR is the sole vehicle on this patent.
3. N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-05792-RFL (consolidated with 3:24-cv-04223-RFL): stayed, no Markman, no trial; Micron's separate DJ action (filed October 2025) and YMTC's D.D.C. false-advertising case are pending.
4. PTAB/§ 312(a)(2)/Return Mail: on appeal at the Federal Circuit since 2026-06-15 (Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. v. Micron Technology, Inc.).

Sourcing note: the PTAB docket entries, grounds, panel, and counsel are well documented (USPTO PTAB papers, docketalarm, GreyB/Unified Patents trackers, the parties' briefs). The 2026-09-02 FWD outcome rests on secondary trade-press reporting (ZDNet Korea, ChinaFlashMarket, StatementDog) — I could not retrieve the decision itself from a primary source, and I did not independently confirm the exact claim-by-claim scope. The district court stay and the March 2025 hearing are confirmed by both Micron's motion and the Director's 2025-06-25 decision. Specific N.D. Cal. docket entry numbers beyond Dkt. 141 and the case numbers are not verified here (search access was limited), so treat any unnumbered assertion as needing a PACER check.

I'll research the counsel of record for Micron in this PTAB post-grant review.

I found the Power of Attorney. Let me confirm the full counsel roster and check for any pro hac vice admissions or added attorneys.

Counsel of Record for Petitioner Micron Technology, Inc. — PGR2025-00021

Important framing note: This is a PTAB post-grant review, not a district court case. There is no PACER docket for PGR2025-00021 itself; counsel of record is established by the Petitioner's Power of Attorney (filed Jan. 6, 2025), the Board's Mandatory Notices/orders, and the "FOR PETITIONER" captions in Board decisions. Micron is also a defendant in the parallel N.D. Cal. litigation brought by YMTC (Yangtze Memory Techs. Co. v. Micron Tech., No. 3:23-cv-05792-RFL and No. 3:24-cv-04223-RFL), and it filed a companion IPR (IPR2025-00229) that the Board terminated on June 12, 2025 so the '838 patent would proceed in this PGR. Nothing reviewed indicates sealed counsel filings for Micron.

Micron's PTAB counsel (all Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP)

In-house representative (not an attorney of record): W. David Westergard, Senior Director, Licensing and Litigation, Micron — signed the Power of Attorney as Micron's authorized representative (dated Jan. 6, 2025). He is the client signatory, not PTAB counsel.

Service/contact addresses of record: P52PTABDocket@orrick.com (Herman), PTABDocketJJL2@orrick.com (Lang), PTABDocketJ3B3@orrick.com (Bobrow).

Clarifications and cautions

• No local counsel. PTAB practice does not require local counsel, and none is designated. (In the parallel N.D. Cal. cases YMTC is plaintiff and Micron is a defendant, so "local counsel" would appear on Micron's district-court docket, not here — I did not verify Micron's district-court counsel roster.)
• The withdrawal orders in this docket are for the Patent Owner's counsel, not Micron's. The Board granted withdrawal of YMTC backup counsel Clement Naples and Steven W. Peters (Latham & Watkins / Cleary Gottlieb); YMTC continues with lead counsel Inge A. Osman and backup Brenda L. Danek (Latham & Watkins). YMTC is the defendant/patent owner here — not the party you asked about.
• Lead/backup designations are current as of the latest Board caption reviewed (Herman as lead, Lang as backup, per the withdrawal order and the June 25, 2025 decision). I did not find any substitution of Micron's counsel.
• Firm-website bios were located for K. Patrick Herman (orrick.com profile confirming New York office, of counsel, IP Group). Bios/office confirmations for Lang, Bobrow, and Jensen were only partially verified through PTAB filings; Bobrow's and Lang's office (Menlo Park) is taken from the addresses in Micron's Power of Attorney.

I'll research the counsel of record for Yangtze Memory Technologies Company (YMTC) in this PTAB post-grant review.

I have strong initial results. Let me dig deeper into the specific filings, mandatory notices, and attorney backgrounds.

Counsel of Record — Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. (Patent Owner / Respondent)

Case: Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd., PGR2025-00021 (PTAB), U.S. Patent No. 12,010,838

Important posture note

This is a PTAB post-grant review, not a district-court infringement action. There is no "defendant" in the traditional sense — the responding party is the Patent Owner, YMTC. (The related infringement suit is Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-04223 (N.D. Cal.), where YMTC is the plaintiff and Micron the defendant.) The counsel below are those representing YMTC before the Board. Petitioner Micron is represented separately by Orrick (K. Patrick Herman, lead; Jeremy Jason Lang; Jared Bobrow pro hac vice) — outside the scope of your question.

The authoritative source for YMTC's roster is its Mandatory Notice under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, as amended by Board order and updated notices. The Board has twice directed YMTC to file Updated Mandatory Notices reflecting counsel changes, so the roster has shifted during the proceeding.

---

Current counsel of record (per Board order and § 42.8 notices)

---

Counsel who have withdrawn

• Clement Naples (Latham & Watkins) — backup counsel; withdrawn.
• Steven W. Peters — backup counsel; withdrawn.

By Board Order Granting Patent Owner's Motions to Withdraw Backup Counsel Steven W. Peters and Clement Naples (unnumbered Paper in PGR2025-00021; YMTC motions Papers 8 and 11), the Board granted both withdrawals, noted that YMTC "will continue to be represented by lead counsel of record (Ms. Inge A. Osman) and back-up counsel of record (including Ms. Brenda L. Danek)," and ordered an Updated Mandatory Notice reflecting the removals. The order lists Peters' contact as speters@cgsh.com (the cgsh.com domain), while earlier filings listed him at steven.peters@lw.com — i.e., a firm change appears to underlie his withdrawal. I could not confirm his current firm from the record and won't speculate.

---

Firms appearing on the service/related-counsel lists

The Petition's Certificate of Service (filed Jan. 6, 2025, Paper 3) lists, for YMTC:

• Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (10 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3500, Chicago) — designated as counsel of record for Patent Owner for service via Customer No. 34431. This appears to be the prosecution/address-of-record firm rather than PTAB trial counsel; I would treat its role cautiously absent a mandatory notice confirming trial representation.
• Ropes & Gray LLP — listed as counsel for YMTC in related PTAB proceedings and the parallel district-court litigation, with a large team: James R. Batchelder, James F. Mack, Alexander E. Middleton, Allen S. Cross, Hyun-Joong Kim, Nancy Attalla, Rachael Bacha, Stepan Starchenko, Andrew T. Radsch, James L. Davis, Christopher M. Bonny, and Nicole Pobre (service inbox YMTC-Micron-IPRs-Ropes-Service@ropesgray.com). Batchelder is a well-known PTAB/Federal Circuit practitioner and former PTAB Bar Association figure. Note: these names appear on the service list, not necessarily as PGR2025-00021 counsel of record.
• Latham & Watkins LLP — service list also named Benjamin J. Behrendt, Brett M. Sandford, Elliott Greb, Thomas Yeh, Richard A. Lowry, and Brent Thomas ("Tom") Watson (who identified himself on the record as representing YMTC in a deposition transcript in this proceeding).

---

Caveats / sourcing limits

1. Authoritative document: The controlling roster is YMTC's Mandatory Notice(s) under § 42.8. An "Updated Mandatory Notices" filing by YMTC (dated Nov. 17, 2025 per the PTAB docket aggregator IPVerse/GreyB) is the most recent listed paper; I was not able to retrieve its full text to confirm the exact current backup roster, so the backup list above may not be exhaustive as of today.
2. Withdrawals post-date the notices. Naples and Peters have been formally removed; any older filing listing them is superseded.
3. No sealed filings encountered on counsel issues — the withdrawal order and service lists are public.
4. I did not find any in-house YMTC counsel appearing of record; YMTC is represented by outside counsel.
5. Court/PACER "counsel of record" terminology applies to the district court; for the PTAB the analogous concept is § 42.8 designation, which is what I've reported.

Primary sources: PTAB Order Granting Patent Owner's Motions to Withdraw Backup Counsel Steven W. Peters and Clement Naples (PGR2025-00021); Micron's PGR Petition and Certificate of Service, Paper 3 (Jan. 6, 2025); YMTC Updated Mandatory Notices (e.g., IPR2025-00244, entered June 2, 2025, listing Osman/Danek/Wheeler/Sanders); Director Discretionary Decision (June 25, 2025) listing "Inge Osman; Brenda Danek — Latham & Watkins LLP" for Patent Owner; Latham & Watkins attorney bios; IPVerse/GreyB PGR2025-00021 docket.