Short Summary
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373. The Board terminated the proceeding by grant of a joint motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01302 concerning U.S. Patent 8,884,373 B2, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC) and patent owner Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review after reaching a settlement. The Board, after confirming that the settlement resolves all related patent office and district court matters, found good cause to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as confidential business information. No merits were decided, and the termination leaves the patent in force.
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. vs Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and patent‑owner SiOnyx settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,599 before a trial began. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested PTAB Director Review for six IPRs, including the dispute over Audio Pod IP's patent 10,805,111. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but cannot submit new evidence. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co.vsThe Ridge Wallet LLC
Mountain Voyage Co. challenges The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents (10791808) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner presents multiple combinations of prior art, including Kane in view of Beckley, Pelz, and Matthews, to demonstrate the claimed features are predictable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends its PH20 enzyme patent in a PTAB Director Review proceeding, arguing that the claims satisfy §112 written description and enablement and that Halozyme's claim‑construction objections are unfounded. The petitioner also contends that Fintiv factors do not justify discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.
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.