Semiconductor manufacturing — US PTAB Patent Cases
57 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 57 total
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris filed a motion to seal its confidential response to Inpria’s request for director review in IPR2025-00267, citing the need to protect trade‑secret information.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Entegris' challenge to Inpria's 11,673,903 patent covering high‑purity organotin compounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Micron by Yangtze Memory Technologies because the Petitioner failed to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest (RPIs).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Harbor Island Dynamic’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision. The brief asserts the Board properly weighed evidence, did not abuse discretion, and that claim construction was unnecessary. The Director is urged to deny the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled all claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s TSV patent. The patent owner contends the Board erred by ignoring expert evidence, failing to construe a claim term, and inventing unsupported modifications to prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’609 patent covering through‑silicon‑via structures, arguing that all 18 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Cooney, Dean, Farooq, and Chen.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9147609. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on technical arguments showing prior art (Cooney) discloses the claimed tapered hollow center in semiconductor vias.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Samsung's challenged claims unpatentable. The patent owner alleges legal error in claim construction and factual error regarding the feasibility of the Gambino process. The request challenges the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision for a deep‑trench isolation patent, arguing the Board mis‑applied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors. The patent owner contends the panel gave insufficient weight to the upcoming district‑court trial date and related investment.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s 9,245,826 patent covering anchor vias for backside metal adhesion, arguing that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB found all twenty challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning backside metal adhesion. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's position that the claim language does not require strict direct contact for 'on a bottom surface.'
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries, finding that parallel district‑court litigation and weak petition merits justified the discretionary denial.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, defending the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings that rely on the prior‑art reference Sung'026 for its CMP pad‑dressing technology.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung submits an authorized response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, defending the Board’s findings that the ’802 patent’s claims are valid and that prior art references, including Sung’146, are properly considered. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung seeks to invalidate a CMP‑pad dresser patent (U.S. 9,138,862) by alleging that prior‑art references, especially Sung’026 and related disclosures, anticipate or render obvious all 20 claims. The petition argues public accessibility of the prior art and cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung’s IPR against Chien‑Min Sung’s 9,724,802 patent was decided with claims 1‑9 and 12‑21 found unpatentable. The patent owner now petitions the Director to overturn the Board’s findings, arguing errors in the designated‑profile analysis, ignored expert testimony, and improper priority treatment of Sung ’146.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung’s IPR challenge to a CMP‑pad conditioning patent is contested by the patent owner, who files a Director Review request alleging Board abuse of discretion on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The owner seeks reversal of the final written decision and validation of all 20 claims.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for all 21 claims in this IPR, finding sufficient evidence of record that prior art (Tsai, Sung '026, Sung '146) anticipates or renders obvious the claimed technology. The decision was reached despite concerns regarding parallel district court litigation involving Samsung and other entities.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al., despite arguments from the patent owner that the disclosures were too general or lacked specific enablement. The Board found sufficient evidence to support anticipation and obviousness claims based on prior art Sung ’026.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Samsung's 8974270, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that combining prior art references renders multiple claims unpatentable.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that most claims (1-9 and 12-21) of the '802 patent were unpatentable over prior art references, primarily Tsai. The Board relied heavily on anticipation and obviousness grounds, while also addressing written description challenges to specific claim limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB found all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over Sung ’026. The technology relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad conditioning methods, and the Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established invalidity across all grounds presented.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that combining Chou and Sung ’479 provided sufficient motivation to achieve the claimed narrow variation in CMP technology.
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.