Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Micron Technology | Patent Lawsuit 22-1422

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Micron Technology, Inc.

22-1422 Fed. Cir. Closed US6424041B1
Get a prior-art report

Patentability filed 1 Feb 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 6 Apr 2023, with US6424041B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US6424041B1
Application no.
US09/848207
Case no.
22-1422
Verdict cause
Patentability
Court
Fed. Cir.
Court level
Court of Appeals
Case region
District of Columbia
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
Appeal
Filed – Closed
1 Feb 2022 – 6 Apr 2023
Duration
429 days
Basis of termination
Unpatentable
Products & marks
Semiconductor device
Validity challenges
2 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 22-1422, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US6424041B1 Inactive App. US09/848207

Semiconductor device

A semiconductor device having copper wiring and capable of reliably preventing copper atoms from diffusing into a memory storage region even in a slight amount is obtained. This semiconductor device includes on a semiconductor substrate a memory cell portion and a wiring portion including copper wires, and includes in a region surrounding the memory cell portion a copper-diffusion preventing film for blocking diffusion of copper atoms from the wiring portion.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
23 Jul 2002
Earliest priority
18 Aug 2000
Est. expiry
4 May 2021
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2018-00664 · Other · filed by INTEL CORPORATIONIPR2020-01007 · filed by Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H01L23/532H01L23/52H01L21/70H01L21/02H01L21/8242H01L27/108H01L23/522H10P14/40H10B12/00
Prosecution counsel
McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
Examiner
MEIER, STEPHEN D.
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED.”

Case 22-1422 · Fed. Cir. · closed 6 April 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 22-1422?

22-1422 is a patent patentability brought by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 against Micron Technology, Inc., filed on 1 Feb 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 6 April 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 22-1422?

US6424041B1 (“Semiconductor device”), assigned to GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1, currently inactive. The record also lists Semiconductor device.

How was case 22-1422 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED.”

How long did case 22-1422 take?

429 calendar days, from filing on 1 Feb 2022 to closure on 6 April 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1422?

Andrew N. Thomases, Andrew T. Radsch and James Lawrence Davis are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. Elizabeth Moulton, Jared Bobrow, Jeremy Jason Lang, Melanie L. Bostwick and Robert Manhas appear for defendant Micron Technology.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 22-1422 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1422 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.