Executive Summary
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.
Related Cases
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.