Short Summary
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195 regarding CMOS fabrication/doping profiles. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on numerous prior art references including Onoda and Payne. This challenges the patent's validity in semiconductor device technology.
Detailed Summary
Texas Instruments Incorporated (Petitioner) has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195, which covers CMOS fabrication and doping profiles. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness). Grounds of challenge rely heavily on prior art references such as Onoda, Payne, Wolf, Parrillo, Sakai, and others. The petitioner argues that the claimed CMOS semiconductor device is either anticipated by a single reference or rendered obvious through combinations of multiple references, particularly regarding complex structures involving graded dopant concentrations and specific implantation/epitaxial methods.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Texas Instruments Incorporated vs Greenthread, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
US Conec Ltd.vsSenko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of Senko Advanced Components' patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation based on prior art references including Nguyen, Lin, Scherer, and Gniadek. The petitioner argues that combining these references yields predictable improvements to the optical connector technology.
Tricam Industries, LLCvs--
Tricam Industries has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 13 claims of Little Giant Ladder Systems' ‘506 patent covering articulated ladder hinges. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness, and argues that the examiner erred in granting the patent.
Microsoft CorporationvsEyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKeyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies in violation of the APA and due‑process rights.
Henri Daussi, LLCvsECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted the parties’ joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential after the IPR was terminated by mutual agreement.
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.