Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

IPR2025-00830

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes TSMC’s request for a Director review of an IPR, arguing the request is defective and lacks merit. The response stresses the Director’s proper discretionary denial based on efficiency and lack of substantive evidence.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00830
Filing Date
15 April 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01020

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.

patentIPR2025-00451

AT&T Services, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.

patentIPR2024-00516

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition against DISH Technologies L.L.C., finding that Aylo Freesites Ltd failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in its prior art search. The Board relied on General Plastic factors, noting substantial similarities between the cited references and suggesting a skilled searcher would have found them earlier.

patentIPR2024-00385

SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al.vsPilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.

SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC regarding claims related to natural gas liquid recovery and CO2 reinjection. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Aycaguer in view of Soldati for several key claims.

patentIPR2024-01126

Nike, Inc.vsSherryWear, LLC

Nike successfully secured institution for all 14 claims of SherryWear's patent, overcoming the Patent Owner's attempt at discretionary denial. The Board found that Nike presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 over Barg and Pintor, leading to an IPR trial.

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 →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call