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
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.
Deltran USA LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB denial of institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the Board correctly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine and exercised its discretionary authority under § 314(a). The response stresses that the arguments are not new and have been previously rejected.
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsGreenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in three related IPRs involving Greenthread's semiconductor patent. The denial leaves the PTAB's rulings intact.
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.