US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 88 of 291 · 8,722 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor's FinFET patent, arguing that the claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑12.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple petition the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’847 MOS transistor patent, citing multiple prior‑art references that anticipate or render the claims obvious under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Apple Inc. successfully challenged Marlin Semiconductor Ltd.'s patent claims, leading to an institution decision where the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 11 claims. The grounds for unpatentability centered on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), utilizing multiple prior art references including Lan, Wang407, and Chen.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct™ AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and AI competitiveness. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00862 was denied. The Board upheld the original decision denying institution of the challenge against Advanced Cluster Systems’ patent.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,082,289 B2, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and public health. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute over a GPU patent, filing a joint motion that led the Board to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied AMD's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00863, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR challenge to SiOnyx’s ‘359 patent after the related district‑court case was dismissed. The patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal, and the Board has not yet decided on institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Pat. No. 8,676,877 B2. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the inter partes review.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and ACS settled their GPU patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 patent. The patent owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding at the pre‑institution stage.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 52 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑advertising patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites §§102(b/e) and prior claim constructions to support unpatentability.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed a petition to invalidate SiOnyx’s 83‑claim image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and argues that the Board should institute the IPR.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD seeks to invalidate 30 claims of its competitor’s ’768 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier cluster‑computing publications and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’768 patent, asserting they are obvious over earlier Cornell research and IBM documentation. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the strong merits and AMD’s AI semiconductor interests.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 image‑sensor patent. The petition alleges that all 25 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references, presenting 15 distinct obviousness grounds. Institution of the IPR is requested.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC's request for review of the office's refusal to institute five IPRs against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC’s request for a Director‑review of an inter‑ partes review was denied, leaving Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s semiconductor process patent intact. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial based on lack of persuasive justification and potential duplication with district‑court litigation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Exhibit 1106 compiles PTAB final decision outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that many of its IPRs resulted in all claims being deemed unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial, arguing that national‑security, settled expectations, and examiner errors justify instituting an IPR against patent 7,923,764.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision denying institution of multiple IPRs covering semiconductor process patents. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Exhibit 1106 lists PTAB outcomes for TSMC-related IPRs, including the 2025 IPR2025-00828 concerning patent 7,579,227.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
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.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.