Industry Sector

Semiconductors — US PTAB Patent Cases

42 decisions indexed

Page 2 of 2 · 42 total

patent instituted

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01493

Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 were non-obvious, leading to the institution of trial on all claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on combinations of Bowen and Sunai prior art.

patent instituted

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01494

Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on 16 claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1's patent (11968909). The Board found sufficient support for obviousness over Bowen and Soukup, particularly regarding Claim 5.

patent instituted

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00007

The PTAB has issued an Institution Decision for IPR2025-00007, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The case involves obviousness challenges (103) against Trina Solar's solar cell patent using combinations of prior art from Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe.

patent denied

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00034

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any remaining claims after several key claims were disclaimed.

patent denied

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00294

The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.

patent denied

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00436

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Industries against Applied Optoelectronics' optical patent (10313024), finding the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art references Mizobuchi and Akashi.

patent denied

Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2025-00701

Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s IPR petition against patent number 10367138 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits under Section 103 grounds.

patent null

Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC

· IPR2024-00542

Nichia Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the validity of BX LED LLC's patent (8567988) based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art, specifically Cao753 and Baek/Cao630, discloses all or elements of the claimed LED packaging technology.

patent null

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:

· IPR2024-00719

MediaTek challenges MOSAID's patent (7945885) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of Nowka/Borkar and Nicol/Borkar. The petitioner argues that the combination of prior art references provides clear motivation to combine elements for advanced power management features in SoCs.

patent null

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00772

Texas Instruments challenges the validity of a patent covering CMOS device fabrication methods on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition asserts that the claimed graded dopant structures are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art combinations, including Kawagoe and Wieczorek.

patent null

ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated

· IPR2024-00802

Elmos Semiconductor SE challenged Texas Instruments' LED driver patent (11653432) in the PTAB, alleging obviousness and anticipation. The petitioner relies on a combination of multiple prior art references to invalidate claims 1-20 related to power management ICs.

patent null

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2024-01226

Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Intellectual Ventures II's patent claims related to DDR SDRAM timing calibration and memory controllers. The petitioner argues that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references Johnson, Jeddeloh, and Keeth. This challenges the validity of a key patent in the semiconductor technology space.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →