Semiconductors — US PTAB Patent Cases
137 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 5 · 137 total
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 31 claims of WeCrevention’s high‑speed memory chip patent. The petition argues that each claim is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering memory modules, ASIC controllers, and 3‑D stacking techniques.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4 and 13 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness, while the remaining challenged claims survive.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a discretionary denial, arguing national‑security stakes and material examiner errors render the ’779 patent invalid under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Palisade’s U.S. Patent No. 8,148,962 before the Board had decided whether to institute the case. The motion relies on the Board’s discretion to terminate early‑stage proceedings and cites prior PTAB decisions granting similar dismissals.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR before the Board institutes trial, arguing the proceeding is at an early stage and resources are minimal. The Board has historically granted such pre‑institution dismissals.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,838 before the Board decided on institution, arguing that the proceeding was at an early stage and dismissal would conserve resources. The Board is expected to grant the motion, terminating the review.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude jointly request the PTAB keep their settlement confidential and move to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions settled their IPRs (IPR2025-01281 and IPR2025-01283) before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Palisade’s 3D NAND patent. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references—Oh, Oh ’738, and Tokiwa—both singly and in combination. It requests that the Board institute the review and invalidate the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-01431 covering DRAM technology. Samsung contends the Director has already rejected Netlist’s arguments and that no new facts merit reconsideration. The request is therefore urged to be denied.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks reversal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its DRAM‑module patent, arguing Samsung failed to name a required real party in interest and that the proceeding duplicates parallel ITC litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director review of two PTAB decisions was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of Netlist’s high‑bandwidth memory patent. Samsung argues the Director has already rejected Netlist’s real‑party‑in‑interest arguments and that Netlist waived its Fintiv arguments, supporting denial of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Netlist’s 3‑D stacked DRAM patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art memory stack designs and signaling protocols. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Force MOS Technology opposes Excelliance's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its MOSFET patent (U.S. 7,629,634). The Board is urged to uphold the Director's final, non‑appealable decision.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Excelliance Mos Corporation’s request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025‑01433 covering patent 7,629,634. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion seeks Board approval to treat the agreement as confidential business information.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not decided the merits, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373. The Board terminated the proceeding by grant of a joint motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Pat. 8,884,373, asserting that the dual‑gate semiconductor device claims are obvious over Tamaki, Igarashi, and Sumi publications and their combinations. The petition argues the examiner erred by ignoring relevant prior‑art disclosures.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’833 patent succeeded, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Best, Bonella, and Mills. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decision intact.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
Patent owners seek rehearing to overturn the PTAB's denial of discretionary denial, arguing that a June 2026 trial in the parallel district court precedes the PTAB's final decision deadline, invoking Fintiv factors. They reference a prior Director decision in a related IPR that denied institution under similar circumstances.
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.