Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v. Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

IPR2025-00865

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00865
Filing Date
17 April 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01182

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices. The petition relies on Eagle and Mgrdechian as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.

patentIPR2026-00272

Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.

Krisp Technologies has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Sanas.AI’s U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, which claims a machine‑learning system for real‑time accent conversion. The petitioner alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and proposes a specific claim construction for “fourth audio data representative of.”

patentIPR2025-00973

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsTelcom Ventures LLC

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent (U.S. 9,462,411) on obviousness grounds, relying on the Jain and Dua publications. The petition argues that all claim elements were known in the art before the patent’s filing date.

patentIPR2025-00583

Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC

Apple has filed a petition to institute an IPR against ImberaTek’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,071,207, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

patentIPR2025-00423

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries settled with Birchtech, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR as to those petitioners while the case remains open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was deemed business‑confidential.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call