Short Summary
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00864) filed on April 17, 2025, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and Apple Inc. seek to have U.S. Patent No. 9,147,747 ('747 patent) instituted and its claims canceled as unpatentable. The petition identifies nine grounds, invoking §§102 and 103, based on prior‑art references Pethe, Chang, Huang, Bohr, and Hong, either singly or in combination, to anticipate or render obvious each of the nine claims covering semiconductor structures such as self‑aligned contacts, trench contacts, dual‑damascene processes, and salicide layers. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §314(a) is inappropriate given a parallel ITC investigation, the petitioners’ high institution rate, and the lack of any other forum adjudicating the claims. Expert testimony from Dr. Jacob Baker is offered, and the petition requests that the PTAB institute the IPR.
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 Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Microsoft Corporation et al.vsInterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding priority and found that the specification adequately supported the combination of Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp.vsParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Pantech Corporation's patent (10863573) regarding dual connectivity/PDCP sequencing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Koskinen, Sammour, and Deenoo for multiple claims.
Anthony Inc.vsControlTec, LLC
Anthony Doors and Energex Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that includes a $300,000 payment and mutual releases of all claims. The underlying civil action was dismissed with prejudice, and the parties agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung sought Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. The Board upheld the Director’s decision, finding no APA or due‑process violations.
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.