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
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLCvsDigital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,574,725 on grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger argues that the claimed method for multimedia distribution is rendered obvious by combining prior art references like Garfinkle and Kosten. This challenge relates to Digital Content Delivery/Video-on-Demand technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Court decision.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al.vsFeit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric’s request to extend the Director Review deadline in two IPRs was denied as untimely, despite arguments about a recent policy change and foreign ownership concerns.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsChen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake files a response urging the PTAB to deny Lian Li’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in a lighting‑technology patent. The brief stresses procedural impropriety and the lack of any new legal or factual issues.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom, Inc.'s '625 patent claims in a PTAB proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that numerous features of the patented technology are rendered obvious either by single prior art references (Rao) or combinations involving Rao and Lundquist. Additionally, Abbott questions the written description support for key anti-rotation features.
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.