US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 89 of 291 · 8,722 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
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.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal law, citing its sensitive business content and prior precedent.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,561,543.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's petitions for review of institution decisions in five IPRs involving Align Technology patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC seeks a Director Review to vacate the institution of an IPR concerning Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent. The request hinges on a revised Fintiv analysis, alleged re‑hash of prior art under §325(d), and failure to name all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent 11,648,090.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in a Director Review proceeding, arguing the patent owner’s request raises new RPI arguments and evidence that are barred. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR over Align Technology’s orthodontic aligner patent, arguing changed Fintiv factors, improper obvious‑to‑try reasoning, and undisclosed foreign parties.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI claim and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Board’s institution decision was correct. The petitioner seeks denial of the Director Review.
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.