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
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Google LLC et al.vsART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of a video‑playlist patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier patents and a programming textbook. The petition cites Hedinsson, Ford, and Kostello as the prior art basis.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs involving a semiconductor process patent. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response with no new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding (PGR2025-00085) involving Alvotech and Regeneron regarding patent 12168036. The petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against patent 8,907,425. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and TSMC’s request is procedurally defective. The review request remains pending.
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.