Executive 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.
Related Cases
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al.vsStellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera patents against a Director Review request. The company argues that the PTAB must honor prior USPTO guidance and a Sotera stipulation, rejecting any discretionary denial.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Apple’s challenge to the ’077 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over Bharadwaj and Yu references.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc.vsMarinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc.'s IPR challenge against Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges regarding plasma concentration limitations and priority.
Duration MediavsRich Media Club LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Rich Media Club LLC's advertising patent. The Board found that Petitioner Duration Media lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103).
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsLionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that Cisco’s high‑speed packet‑processing claims are unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board erred in accepting a new reply theory and misapplied inherency standards.
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.