Monterey Research, LLC v. Qualcomm, Inc. et al.
Patentability filed 11 May 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 16 Oct 2023, with US6651134B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6651134B1
- Application no.
- US09/504344
- Case no.
- 22-1771
- 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
- 11 May 2022 – 16 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 523 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Memory device with fixed length non interruptible burst
- Validity challenges
- 9 on record
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Memory device with fixed length non interruptible burst
An integrated circuit comprising a memory and a logic circuit. The memory may comprise a plurality of storage elements each configured to read and write data in response to an internal address signal. The logic circuit may be configured to generate a predetermined number of the internal address signals in response to (i) an external address signal, (ii) a clock signal and (iii) one or more control signals. The generation of the predetermined number of internal address signals may be non-interruptible.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 18 Nov 2003
- Est. expiry
- 14 Feb 2020
- Validity challenges
- 9 on recordIPR2020-01492 · filed by QUALCOMM INCORPORATEDIPR2020-01492 · Patentability · filed by Monterey Research, LLCIPR2020-00985 · Patentability · filed by Monterey Research, LLCIPR2020-00985 · filed by ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.IPR2021-00355 · Other · filed by STMicroelectronics Inc.IPR2021-00702 · Other · filed by STMicroelectronics, Inc.IPR2021-00702 · filed by STMicroelectronics, Inc.IPR2020-01492 · filed by QUALCOMM INCORPORATEDIPR2021-00167 · filed by Nanya Technology Corporation
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PHELAN, CATHAL G.
- Classification
- G11C7/10G11C11/406
- Prosecution counsel
- Kunzler Bean & Adamson
- Examiner
- SPARKS, DONALD
Parties of record
Monterey Research, LLC
- Core tech
- G11C7/10G11C11/406
- Counsel
- Kayvan B. Noroozi
- Firm
- Noroozi PC
Qualcomm, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- STMicroelectronics, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kayvan B. Noroozi | Monterey Research, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“We affirm that the ’134 patent was obvious over the combination of Wada and Barrett and conclude that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Because we affirm the Board’s obviousness determination based on Wada and Barrett, we decline to reach the issue of anticipation or obviousness over Schaefer or the question of whether STMicro is a proper party to the Schaefer ap peal.THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1771 · Fed. Cir. · closed 16 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 22-1771?
22-1771 is a patent patentability brought by Monterey Research, LLC against Qualcomm, Inc., filed on 11 May 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 16 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1771?
US6651134B1 (“Memory device with fixed length non interruptible burst”), assigned to MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Memory device with fixed length non interruptible burst.
How was case 22-1771 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “We affirm that the ’134 patent was obvious over the combination of Wada and Barrett and conclude that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Because we affirm the Board’s obviousness determination based on Wada and Barrett, we decline to reach the issue of anticipation or obviousness over Schaefer or the question of whether STMicro is a proper party to the Schaefer ap peal.THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1771 take?
523 calendar days, from filing on 11 May 2022 to closure on 16 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1771?
Kayvan B. Noroozi is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Monterey Research.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1771 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.