Short Summary
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s ’473 MOS transistor patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00879, co‑petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) and Apple Inc. request inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,093,473, which claims methods for fabricating metal‑oxide semiconductor (MOS) transistors. The petition identifies four grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, each combining prior‑art references such as Okuno, Shin, Chong, and Mandelman to challenge claims 1‑10. It emphasizes TSMC’s strong institution record, the lack of parallel adjudication, and argues that discretionary denial under § 314(a) is unwarranted, citing Apple v. Fintiv. The petition concludes that the trial should be instituted and the challenged claims cancelled.
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 Limited et al. vs Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'
Google LLCvsValtrus Innovation Limited et al.
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 14‑21 and 24‑28 of U.S. Patent 7,057,509, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems for object monitoring and tracking.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied Tesla's IPR against Intellectual Ventures II over patent 7,181,743. The Board found that the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific 'event correlation capabilities' required by the challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,668,430 after reaching a settlement with Birchtech Corp. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding with respect to WEC Energy Group.
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.