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
TROVE BRANDS, LLCvsCamelBak Products, LLC
TROVE BRANDS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against CamelBak Products' drinkware patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over prior art references including Nakajima and Ribarits. This decision sets up a detailed examination of complex mechanical features in beverage containers.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al.vsShanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. successfully argued obviousness over Wei, Liu, and Leanna in an IPR proceeding against Shanghai Miracogen Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims, leading to the institution of the case for trial.
Resmed Corp.vsFractus, S.A.
Resmed has filed a petition to cancel all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, alleging lack of novelty, obviousness, and insufficient written description for 4G standards. The petition relies on prior‑art references Dou, Ciais‑Quadband, Nakano, and Baliarda‑543.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Maxell’s ‘088 patent covering wireless LAN permission management faces an IPR from Samsung. The patent owner argues the prior art is unrelated and the petition fails to prove obviousness, seeking affirmation of all claims.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
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.