Short Summary
Exhibit containing the final written decision outcomes for IPR2025-00879 involving TSMC and Marlin Semiconductor.
Detailed Summary
This document is an exhibit that presents the final written decision outcomes for Inter Partes Review IPR2025-00879, filed by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd.'s U.S. Patent No. 9,093,473. The text of the decision is not legible, so specific findings, claim constructions, and the ultimate result of the proceeding are not discernible from the available material.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. vs Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Solventum CorporationvsM.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
Nutanix filed a request for director review, urging the PTAB to deny Tessell’s IPR on grounds of unfair dealing, settled expectations, and prior art already examined. The petition argues that the inventors are attempting to profit twice from the same invention.
Google LLCvsTelcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based proximity detection and mobile payments, citing obviousness over Barnett, Waters, Wang and Sakamoto references.
Apple Inc.vsLS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR for Apple Inc. against LS Cable & System Ltd., finding that Apple failed to meet the legal threshold required to proceed with the challenge.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition against iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 11,270,174. The supporting declaration authenticates numerous prior‑art patents and applications that Samsung relies on to challenge the patent’s claims.
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.