Short Summary
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging MYW Semitech’s 11,538,763 chip‑package patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the patent before the PTAB.
Detailed Summary
In Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2026-00066, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC) and Apple Inc. challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,538,763 owned by MYW Semitech, LLC. The petition alleges that claims 1‑23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of a suite of prior‑art references, including Sundaram, Lin‑191, Lin‑863, Lin‑691, Shenoy and Yu. The challengers argue that the patent’s claimed ranges lack criticality and that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references, rendering the invention obvious. No claim construction is required because the prior art falls within the scope of the claims under any reasonable interpretation. The petition is pending before the PTAB.
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 Ltd. et al. vs MYW Semitech, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd.vsConverter Manufacturing LLC
Ningbo Linhua Plastic seeks an IPR on Converter Manufacturing’s 10,562,222 patent covering thermoformed plastic trays with smooth edges. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art (Portelli and Meadors) and urges the PTAB to institute the review despite discretionary denial arguments.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR on patent 11,129,163, arguing the Board misread prosecution history and ignored key arguments about BSS color usage.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493, a camera‑technology patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement that led to the termination of an IPR challenge to Patent 7,428,669 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
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.