Patent Cases

The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of the PTAB's institution denial for patent 8,253,180. The denial applies uniformly across five related IPRs.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00831

TSMC has filed a Director Review Request seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that blocked its challenge to U.S. Patent 8,587,076. The petition emphasizes national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and alleged examiner errors. The PTAB has yet to rule on the request.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes TSMC’s request for a Director review of an IPR, arguing the request is defective and lacks merit. The response stresses the Director’s proper discretionary denial based on efficiency and lack of substantive evidence.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against its 28nm‑3nm process patents, arguing national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and material examiner errors. The petition cites extensive prior art to show lack of patentability under §§102 and 103.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial of an IPR on a semiconductor patent. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and the petition defective. The Board’s decision remains pending.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.'s request for a Director review of U.S. Patent 7,579,227, arguing the Board correctly exercised discretionary denial. The response highlights procedural deficiencies, meritless new‑facts claims, and unsupported national‑security arguments.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

The exhibit summarizes PTAB IPR outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that about 42% of its challenged claims were found unpatentable.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

patent instituted · Apr 15, 2025

TSMC filed a Director Review Request asking the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial and refer its challenge to the ‘227 patent to a merits panel, citing national security, settled expectations, and material errors in issuance.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

Google challenged Sandpiper CDN’s request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering an expired CDN patent. The Board affirmed institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for key claims and rejecting discretionary denial arguments. The case now moves toward a final written decision.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Apr 15, 2025

Google has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of an institution decision that allowed review of an expired Sandpiper CDN patent. The petition argues the Board ignored settled‑expectation precedent and that the petition fails the likelihood‑of‑success threshold.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

In IPR2025-00829, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding at least one claim of U.S. Patent 7,923,764 unpatentable. The challenger TSMC and patent owner Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC presented arguments under §§102/103, resulting in a mixed outcome.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

patent denied · Apr 15, 2025

Court decision.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper’s CDN patent (9,021,112). The institution of the patent remains in effect.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00042

Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,037,618 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior patents and publications.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00042

Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to invalidate all 40 claims.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00831

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,587,076, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper under §§314(a) and 325(d).

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’180 patent, asserting obviousness over numerous high‑k gate dielectric references. The petition also argues that the Board should not apply discretionary denial. The case is pending institution.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Advanced Integrated Circuit Process's 7,579,227 patent covering high‑k gate dielectric structures, arguing obviousness and anticipation based on multiple prior publications.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 7,923,764 covering high‑k gate dielectric techniques. The petition relies on a multitude of prior‑art references to argue that each claim is obvious. The case is pending institution.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

patent instituted · Apr 15, 2025

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s 2015 CDN patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00042

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '618 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness regarding modified PH20 polypeptides. The PTAB adopted a functional claim construction requiring hyaluronidase activity for the claimed genus.

patent instituted · Apr 15, 2025

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 15, 2025

Google LLC successfully had its IPR institution decision upheld, advancing the case against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent 9021112. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited

Supreme Court of India · 170672552

This Supreme Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning alleged copyright infringement related to proprietary engineering drawings used in manufacturing LNG semi-trailers. The core issue was whether these technical drawings fell under the definition of 'design' under the Designs Act, thereby invalidating the claim for copyright protection. The Supreme Court held that determining this mixed question of law and fact could not be done at a preliminary stage (Order VII Rule 11 CPC). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the Commercial Court was directed to conduct a full trial to comprehensively assess all IP claims.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000797

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril Italy S.r.l.

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000796

Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL

Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000795

Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited

Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000794

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH

This is a cost assessment proceeding before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The defendants (expert companies) sought to recover €111,000 in costs after the patent was revoked and the infringement action was dismissed. The court rejected the cost assessment application as inadmissible because it was filed more than one month after the decision was served, as required by Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000793

Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The claimants sought recognition of attempted service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) as valid, or alternatively substituted service, after the registered letter was notified for collection but left unclaimed. The court applied Rule 271.6(b) RoP and deemed service on Defendant 4 effective on 14 March 2025, ordering the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000792

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.