Short Summary
The PTAB found all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over Sung ’026. The technology relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad conditioning methods, and the Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established invalidity across all grounds presented.
Detailed Summary
In this final IPR proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The patent covers methods for conditioning a Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad dresser containing superabrasive particles. Petitioner successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Sung ’026, which was found to disclose all limitations of the challenged claims. Furthermore, the Board addressed procedural issues, including denying the Patent Owner's motion to exclude evidence and defining the level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) as requiring a bachelor’s degree plus two years of CMP experience.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. vs Sung, Chien-Min is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,572,879 covering an implantable LVAD. The petition asserts that four prior‑art references render all asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The case is currently pending before the PTAB.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network challenges the validity of patent 8621539, arguing that its claims are obvious by combining prior art from Hou, Konschak, and Dapper. The petitioner asserts that known techniques in broadband cable networking render the claimed methods predictable improvements.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s LTE‑Advanced CSI‑RS patent. The petition argues the decision misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA. It also points to examiner error in claim interpretation.
Shuttleslide, LLCvsSea Swivel Inc.
Shuttleslide, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Sea Swivel’s U.S. Pat. No. 12,258,111, alleging anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of written description based on numerous marine‑accessory references.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd.vsBarco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.
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.