Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In an authorized response to a Director review request, Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP) urges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.'s (TSMC) petition to compel an inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,579,227. AICP contends that the Director properly exercised discretion to deny the request, emphasizing TSMC's failure to provide persuasive justification, the frivolous nature of its new‑facts and national‑security arguments, and the risk of duplication, expense, and inconsistent outcomes if the review proceeded. The brief also rebuts TSMC's assertions regarding settled expectations, examiner error, and candor, asserting that these theories lack substantial evidence and are contrary to established precedent. By underscoring the high legal burden on petitioners and the Board’s holistic analysis, AICP seeks a definitive denial of the Director review request.
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 Ltd. vs Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nokia of America Corporation et al.vsWoodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless and moved to terminate the IPR over patent 9,496,930. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory termination provisions.
Tesla, Inc.vsBulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Patent 12,338,71, asserting that the vehicle gear‑selection and unparking features are obvious over Joos and its combinations with Bettger, Kischkat, and Hoop. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.
Google LLCvsTelcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
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.