Patent titles are not claims, and nowhere is that gap wider than with a grant titled simply "SRAM structures." Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.'s late-2025 grant carries exactly that generic title, which makes it a useful teaching case in why you must read the claim, not the cover.
US12499933B2, "SRAM structures" (issued 2025-12-16), is classified in G11C 11/412 (SRAM static-cell operation), G11C 11/419 (SRAM access/sensing), and H10B 10/12 (SRAM device structures). The classification mix - both operational (G11C) and structural (H10B) codes - tells you the claim ties a specific physical cell to a specific way of operating it.
Construe past the title. A claim on 'an SRAM' would be invalid over decades of prior art, so the independent claim necessarily narrows to a particular cell: a specific transistor arrangement, a specific read or write assist scheme, a specific layout that improves stability or area. The G11C-plus-H10B pairing signals the novelty is in the cell-and-operation combination.
The inventor list (Ping-Wei Wang and colleagues) overlaps TSMC's broader SRAM cell-design team, whose work in this period targets GAA-era SRAM stability and the read/write-margin problems that intensify as cells shrink. Reading the claim, the fenced element is almost certainly a stability or margin feature, not the cell topology in the abstract.
The design-around space is whatever the specific claimed feature is. If the claim requires a particular read-assist structure, a competitor using write-assist or a different bitline scheme avoids it. The narrowness imposed by prior art is the design-around's friend - generic-titled patents usually fence less than they appear to.
For a claim-construction read, the discipline this case teaches is house rule number one at this desk: never describe what a patent is 'about' from its title. 'SRAM structures' covers exactly one structure-and-method combination, and only the independent claim's limitations tell you which.