Short Summary
TSMC seeks a Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against patent 8,907,425. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and TSMC’s request is procedurally defective. The review request remains pending.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00683, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) filed a Director Review request challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s discretionary denial to institute an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,907,425 owned by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC. The patent owner submitted an authorized response asserting that the Director correctly exercised discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), that TSMC’s arguments on national security, settled expectations, and duplication lack evidentiary support, and that TSMC’s request fails to satisfy the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The Board’s final decision on the review request has not yet been issued, leaving the matter unresolved.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
fuboTV Media Inc.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that many claims of the ’555 adaptive‑rate streaming patent are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0), rendering them unpatentable, while other claims remain valid.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company
The Board found that all eleven challenged claims of the jump starter apparatus patent were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on finding that Richardson and Zhao teachings, combined with common USB technology, satisfied the claim limitations.
Google LLC et al.vsART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of a video‑playlist patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier patents and a programming textbook. The petition cites Hedinsson, Ford, and Kostello as the prior art basis.
Stingray Group Inc. et al.vsHernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs parties of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOne-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of One‑E‑Way’s U.S. Patent 10,129,627 covering wireless digital audio spread‑spectrum technology, seeking cancellation of all twelve claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.