Short Summary
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
Detailed Summary
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC and its affiliates have filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9724802, which relates to Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner asserts that the claims are invalid under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The core of the challenge rests on prior art references, specifically Tsai et al., Sung’026, and Sung’146. Petitioner contends that these references disclose or render obvious key features of the claimed CMP pad dressers, such as specific tip variations and structural configurations, thereby establishing a prima facie case for invalidity across claims 1-21.
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
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al.vsSerendia, LLC
During an IPR hearing, Jeisys Medical announced a settlement with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents, seeking to suspend the schedule until November 20.
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab seeks to invalidate 44 claims of FRACTUS’s 8,456,365 antenna patent, arguing that the Tran and Teng references make the claims obvious. The petition details claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsGeneral Access Solutions, Ltd.
Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of Oak IP’s ’691 patent covering metal‑semiconductor junctions. The petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 for anticipation and on a combination of that patent with U.S. Patent No. 7,727,882 for obviousness, while also raising written‑description and enablement issues.
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.