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
Liberty Energy Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Liberty Energy’s request for a review of the institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,208,878, leaving the patent’s institution intact.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
Aerin Medical Inc.vsNeurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.
Caption Health, Inc. et al.vsUniversity of British Columbia
Caption Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate UBC’s 10,751,029 ultrasound‑image‑analysis patent, asserting anticipation by Krishnan and obviousness over Chen, Aase and Wu. All 30 claims are challenged under §§102 and 103.
Stingray Group Inc. et al.vsHernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.
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.