Short Summary
The Board instituted IPR2020‑01206 on 294 claims of the ’691 patent and held eight claims unpatentable for anticipation by Grupp ’483, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2020‑01206, the PTAB instituted a review of 294 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,905,691 B2, which relates to depinning the Fermi level in metal‑semiconductor junctions using thin interface layers. Petitioner (GLOBALFOUNDRIES) asserted that the prior‑art patent Grupp ’483 anticipates the metal‑oxide features of several claims and challenged the written‑description support for oxide‑of‑titanium dependent claims. The Board concluded that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102, rejected the belated written‑description arguments, and found the specification does not enable the full range of specific‑contact‑resistivity values, thereby affirming partial unpatentability.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. vs OAK IP LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
Google LLC et al.vsCerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Cerence’s ’750 patent covering low‑power voice activation. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Nokia’s video‑coding patent, arguing obviousness over Karczewicz and the MPEG‑1/H.263 combination.
American Airlines, Inc. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to institute their IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent, as the Board found they could not meet the burden of proof regarding claim construction and obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate how it would construe key indefinite terms in its petition.
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.