Short Summary
MediaTek successfully challenged MOSAID's patent (7224563) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Tam and Huard.
Detailed Summary
MediaTek Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent 7224563, challenging several claims based on obviousness (103). The Board declined to deny institution, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to at least one challenged claim. Key grounds involved combining prior art references such as Tam US 6,762,629 B2 and Huard US 6,885,233 B2 to show obviousness over the claimed circuit control features. The proceedings are now set for trial.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MediaTek Inc. et al. vs MOSAID Technologies Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not decided the merits, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al.vsKyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00262, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent No. 10,478,954 covering cutting‑tool technology.
Google LLCvsPOINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsLowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.
Geneoscopy, Inc.vsExact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
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.