Unified Patents v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co Ltd

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-00117, Unified Patents v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co Ltd, is currently before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has been instituted.

The petitioner, Unified Patents, is a membership organization that seeks to improve patent quality and deter unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, particularly by non-practicing entities (NPEs) and patent assertion entities (PAEs). They achieve this by monitoring NPE activity, analyzing patents, and filing post-grant challenges like IPRs against patents they believe are unpatentable or invalid. The patent owner, Yangtze Memory Technologies Co Ltd (YMTC), is a Chinese semiconductor integrated device manufacturer specializing in 3D NAND flash memory chips. YMTC produces enterprise solid-state drives (SSDs) under its own brand and for resellers, and its consumer products are marketed under the brand ZhiTai. YMTC's proprietary Xtacking architecture is designed for vertical NAND chips, enabling the manufacture of memory and logic circuits on separate wafers that are then bonded together.

The patent at issue is US Patent 10672711, titled "Semiconductor device and method for manufacturing the same." This patent generally relates to semiconductor structures and methods for forming them, specifically in the context of 3D NAND memory. The IPR proceeding takes place before the PTAB, an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This venue is crucial because IPRs offer a faster and generally less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. The PTAB's decisions are made by panels of administrative judges, and a final written decision is typically issued within 12 months of institution.

This case is notable due to its connection to ongoing patent infringement litigation where YMTC has asserted numerous patents, including 10672711, against Micron Technology, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 3:24-cv-04223-RFL and 3:23-cv-05792-RFL). YMTC has also expanded its litigation against Micron to include courts in Germany and the Unified Patent Court. The IPR by Unified Patents is likely a defensive measure to challenge the validity of a patent asserted by YMTC in these broader disputes. The context of YMTC being a Chinese semiconductor company and having been placed on the U.S. Department of Commerce's Entity List also adds a geopolitical dimension, as the USPTO Director has shown an increasing willingness to consider national and international technology policy in IPR decisions, particularly regarding entities on the Entity List. The PTAB's decision to institute this IPR indicates that Unified Patents has demonstrated a "reasonable likelihood" of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

IPR Proceeding Against Yangtze Memory Technologies Co Ltd's Patent 10672711 is Instituted

Alexandria, VA – An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00117, initiated by Unified Patents against U.S. Patent No. 10,672,711, owned by Yangtze Memory Technologies Co Ltd (YMTC), is currently pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has been instituted for review.

Key Legal Developments:

Parallel District Court Litigation:
U.S. Patent No. 10,672,711 was previously asserted by Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement lawsuit against Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, LLC. This action, filed on July 12, 2024, is Case No. 3:24-cv-04223-RFL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This lawsuit was consolidated with an earlier patent infringement action filed by YMTC against Micron on November 9, 2023 (Case No. 3:23-cv-05792-RFL), encompassing 19 asserted patents.

IPR Petition Filing:
Unified Patents filed its petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00117) challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,672,711. The precise filing date for IPR2025-00117 is not explicitly provided in the search results, but the case number indicates it was filed in early 2025.

Institution Decision:
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted the IPR proceeding, meaning the Board determined there was a reasonable likelihood that Unified Patents would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,672,711 is unpatentable. While the exact date of institution for IPR2025-00117 is not specified in the provided information, IPR institution decisions typically occur within six months of the petition filing. The "pending - instituted" status confirms this significant milestone.

No further details regarding specific claim construction (Markman) outcomes within this IPR, significant discovery milestones, trial events, or a final written decision are available yet, as the case is still pending post-institution.

Context of PTAB Policy Changes:

It is noteworthy that the institution of this IPR occurred amidst a period of significant policy changes at the USPTO regarding IPR proceedings. Effective October 20, 2025, the USPTO Director began personally determining whether to institute IPR and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings, moving away from previous panel decisions. This new process often involves summary notices for routine decisions and requires consultation with at least three PTAB judges, with final authority resting with the Director. Additionally, memoranda issued in October and November 2025 introduced requirements for petitioners to identify all real parties-in-interest and signaled a shift towards curtailing IPR access, particularly where parallel litigation is well underway. However, as IPR2025-00117 was instituted, it proceeded successfully through these discretionary considerations.

Given the information available through web searches, the specific counsel of record for Unified Patents in IPR2025-00117 is not explicitly detailed in publicly accessible docket summaries or news articles directly pertaining to this exact case. Unified Patents frequently utilizes its in-house legal team for Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, often in conjunction with outside counsel.

Based on general information regarding Unified Patents' IPR activities and appearances in other related proceedings, the following individuals from Unified Patents' in-house team are known for their involvement in PTAB matters and would likely be involved in a case of this nature:

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief IP Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents, LLC, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Frequently acts as lead counsel and speaker on PTAB and patent quality issues, as seen in amicus briefs and webinars.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: In-house Counsel (likely Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents, LLC, Washington, D.C. (also lists a Dallas, TX address in some older filings for Unified Patents)
  • Experience Note: Regularly appears as counsel for Unified Patents in various PTAB proceedings and related filings.

• Kelly R. Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents, LLC, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Involved in drafting and litigating patent office proceedings, including ex parte reexaminations and post-grant petitions.

It is common for Unified Patents to have a team of in-house counsel handle the bulk of their IPR work. While these individuals are strongly associated with Unified Patents' PTAB efforts, without a specific docket entry or appearance list for IPR2025-00117, it is not possible to definitively state the exact lead counsel or any specific outside counsel for this precise case. Filings for PTAB cases are typically available through the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system, which was not directly accessible for this search.

I am unable to definitively identify the specific counsel of record representing Yangtze Memory Technologies Co Ltd as the defendant (Patent Owner) in IPR2025-00117.

While web searches reveal that Yangtze Memory Technologies Co Ltd (YMTC) is involved in numerous patent disputes and IPRs, the available public search results do not explicitly list the counsel for YMTC in its role as the Patent Owner in IPR2025-00117.

Some search results mention "YMTC's Ropes & Gray attorneys" in the context of IPRs where YMTC was the petitioner challenging Micron patents (e.g., IPR2025-00098, IPR2025-00099). Additionally, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP has represented YMTC in other district court litigation. However, these do not confirm their representation for YMTC as the Patent Owner in IPR2025-00117.

To accurately identify the counsel of record, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience, access to the official PTAB docket for IPR2025-00117 would be necessary. Without this direct access, I cannot provide the requested information.