IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 129 of 189 · 5,670 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 metal‑oxide semiconductor transistor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Director Review requests for four IPR institution decisions, including the challenge to Patent 9,093,473 owned by Marlin Semiconductor. Petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple’s bid to overturn the institution denial was rejected.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied the Director Review requests filed by TSMC and Apple challenging the denial to institute IPR2025-00848 against Marlin Semiconductor's patent.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple attempted to overturn USPTO denials of institution for Marlin Semiconductor patents, but the Board denied their Director Review requests, leaving the institution decisions intact.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 semiconductor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. Petitioners TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor's 2015 FinFET patent. The petition emphasizes national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and alleged examiner errors. It also argues the ITC shutdown changes the Fintiv calculus.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00848 and IPR2025-00879. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues, and no new evidence is allowed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied the petition for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple versus Marlin Semiconductor. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2018 semiconductor‑device patent, citing national‑security, public‑interest, and material‑error concerns. The petition argues the shutdown‑induced delay in the ITC makes referral essential.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and a five‑business‑day deadline, with no new evidence allowed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director confirms receipt of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and prohibiting new evidence. The patent owner must file its response within five business days.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’880 patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. The Petitioners’ arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
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.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations. The petition stresses the parallel ITC case and TSMC’s strong institution record. No claim construction is raised at this stage.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor's FinFET patent, arguing that the claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑12.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple petition the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’847 MOS transistor patent, citing multiple prior‑art references that anticipate or render the claims obvious under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Apple Inc. successfully challenged Marlin Semiconductor Ltd.'s patent claims, leading to an institution decision where the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 11 claims. The grounds for unpatentability centered on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), utilizing multiple prior art references including Lan, Wang407, and Chen.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.IMO Holding Gmbh
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition (Patents) challenging the validity of Patent IN254458, arguing that it lacked novelty and did not comply with relevant provisions of the Patents Act. However, the counsel for the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they had reached a settlement with the contesting respondent.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti v.MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti filed three Original Applications seeking an interim injunction against MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SEVEN HILLS' brand, which is registered by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where the corporate debtor was undergoing restructuring. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the applications, finding that the resolution plan sanctioned by the NCLT prima facie granted permission to use 'Seven Hills,' thus balancing convenience in favor of the defendant.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680 in an infringement action. The defendants sought permission under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional written submissions regarding allegedly contradictory statements made by the first plaintiff (DISH Technologies) in a parallel US proceeding before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning a related patent (US 8,868,772). The court rejected the application, holding that a party's differing interpretation of another patent in a separate proceeding is not admissible interpretation material for the patent in suit, and that the defendants failed to justify why they could not have introduced the relevant technical facts earlier in the proceedings.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. applied for an order requiring AorticLab srl to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425 before the Local Division Munich. The court held that a party filing a counterclaim for revocation qualifies as an 'Applicant' under Art. 69(4) UPCA and can request security for costs, and found that AorticLab's own statements about potential insolvency created a legitimate concern regarding recoverability of costs. The court ordered AorticLab to provide security of €200,000.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The court addressed Heraeus's request to extend its reply deadline and Vibrantz's request for clarification of deadlines. The court corrected the start date of Heraeus's reply period to March 18, 2025, when its UPC representative was granted access to unredacted documents, but rejected the extension request, holding that vacation plans of Confidentiality Club members cannot affect procedural deadlines.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected a request by Siltronic AG to review an inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends used in semiconductor wafer cutting. The court held that the original order, which included inspection of premises and seizure of delivery notes and invoices, was appropriate to secure evidence of alleged infringement. The court also found that the existing confidentiality regime sufficiently protected the respondents' interests.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct™ AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and AI competitiveness. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00862 was denied. The Board upheld the original decision denying institution of the challenge against Advanced Cluster Systems’ patent.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.