Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v. Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

IPR2025-00879

Exhibit containing the final written decision outcomes for IPR2025-00879 involving TSMC and Marlin Semiconductor.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00879
Filing Date
17 April 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentPGR2025-00010

Phison Electronics CorporationvsVervain, LLC

Phison Electronics files a PGR petition to invalidate Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent, asserting abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness and obviousness. The petition leans on an expert declaration and extensive prior‑art citations.

patentIPR2024-00595

Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al.vsTargan, Inc.

The PTAB found that claims 1-15 of the patent are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board's construction of 'unrestrained chick' was crucial, defining it as a chick free to open its wings on the moving platform.

patentIPR2025-01463

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.

Harbor Freight and Champion Power have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,840,970 covering a dual‑fuel generator. The parties filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations, and the petitioner seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.

patentIPR2025-01228

Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.

Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE have settled their IPR dispute with Champion Power over a dual‑fuel selector switch. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw from the proceeding.

patentIPR2024-00794

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron's request for director review of the PTAB's decision on its 3D NAND patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to meet the burden of proving obviousness or motivation to combine prior art references.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call