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
Toyota Motor Corporation et al.vsBUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Bunker Hill’s ’508 hybrid‑drive patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on a technical expert declaration and argues no secondary considerations exist.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board issued key claim constructions, defining 'driving component' as means-plus-function while confirming 'control component' is structurally defined.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsOS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to review OS‑New Horizon’s U.S. Pat. 8,401,875 covering multi‑biometric authentication in handheld devices, asserting that a combination of prior‑art references renders the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,933,370, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for IPL and WPL. The Board is asked to dismiss those parties under 35 U.S.C. §317.
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.