Untitled case

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00058, involves patent owner Marlin Semiconductor Limited. Marlin Semiconductor is identified as a patent monetization entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), operating as a subsidiary of IPValue Management, which is owned by the private equity firm Vector Capital. Marlin Semiconductor primarily holds and monetizes intellectual property, having acquired a substantial portfolio of over 480 U.S. patents from United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) in June 2021, with further acquisitions in October 2023. Although the specific petitioner for IPR2026-00058 is not disclosed in publicly available search results, these IPRs are typically filed defensively by companies facing infringement allegations. Marlin Semiconductor, often alongside its affiliate Longitude Licensing Limited, has actively litigated these semiconductor patents against major industry players such as Apple, Broadcom, Qualcomm, Lenovo, OnePlus, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). The technology allegedly infringing in these related lawsuits generally involves semiconductor devices fabricated using "TSMC's 16nm and smaller process nodes," as well as downstream products like smartphones and tablets that incorporate such devices.

The sole patent challenged in this IPR is U.S. Patent 7,288,822. A detailed one-line technical sketch of this specific patent is not readily available from the provided public search results. However, given Marlin Semiconductor's known portfolio and ongoing litigation, the patent likely pertains to semiconductor technology. The procedural posture of IPR2026-00058 is before the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the petition was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This status indicates that the Board declined to initiate a trial on the merits of the patent's validity, based on procedural grounds rather than the substantive arguments of unpatentability.

This case is notable as it reflects a broader trend in patent litigation involving NPEs and the evolving landscape of PTAB proceedings. Marlin Semiconductor's role as an NPE, systematically acquiring and asserting semiconductor patents from former operating companies like UMC, highlights a common pattern in the industry. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome is particularly significant in the current PTAB environment, where the Board, under recent policy shifts including "Director Discretionary Denial," has increasingly denied institution of IPRs on various procedural grounds, such as considerations of parallel district court or ITC litigation (e.g., Fintiv factors) or "settled expectations." Such denials represent a considerable hurdle for petitioners attempting to challenge patent validity and can influence overall patent litigation strategy for both patent owners and accused infringers in the semiconductor sector.

IPR2026-00058: Procedural Denial by PTAB for Patent 7,288,822

This report summarizes the known legal developments and outcome for IPR2026-00058 concerning Patent No. 7,288,822, which involves Marlin Semiconductor Limited as the Patent Owner. As of the current date, the Inter Partes Review (IPR) was not instituted, with the petition being denied on procedural grounds. No specific patent infringement litigation in district court asserting patent 7,288,822 by Marlin Semiconductor Limited has been identified in public records.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2026-00058)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: An unknown petitioner filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,288,822. The exact filing date of this specific petition is not publicly detailed beyond its IPR number indicating a 2026 filing.
• Outcome - Not Instituted (Procedural): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an IPR trial for IPR2026-00058 on procedural grounds. The specific procedural reasons for the denial of this particular IPR are not detailed in the publicly available search results. However, general procedural grounds for denial by the Director of the USPTO can include factors such as an incomplete real party in interest disclosure, untimely filing, or discretionary denials based on factors like parallel litigation (e.g., Fintiv factors), settled expectations for older patents, or efficient use of Office resources. Since October 17, 2025, the USPTO Director has been individually screening IPR petitions and issuing summary notices of institution or denial. It's notable that the institution rate for IPRs and PGRs has seen a significant decline, with a substantial number of denials based on discretionary considerations.

Related Litigation and Marlin Semiconductor Limited's Patent Portfolio

While no direct infringement litigation involving patent 7,288,822 was found, Marlin Semiconductor Limited, a subsidiary of IPValue Management, has been actively involved in other patent litigation and an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation concerning different patents from its portfolio.

• February 18, 2025: Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), leading to Investigation No. 337-TA-1443. The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 based on the importation and sale of certain foreign-fabricated semiconductor devices infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,745,847; 9,093,473; 9,147,747; 9,184,292; and 9,953,880. An evidentiary hearing in this ITC investigation is scheduled for February 2, 2026.
• May 18, 2025: Marlin Semiconductor Limited initiated patent infringement litigation in district courts. Complaints were filed against Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm (Case No. 1:25-cv-00215) in the Western District of Texas, and against Lenovo (Motorola Mobile Communication), OnePlus, and TSMC (Case No. 2:25-cv-00171) in the Eastern District of Texas. These cases assert the same five patents as the ITC investigation (7,745,847; 9,093,473; 9,147,747; 9,184,292; 9,953,880). The district court cases are subject to a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 due to the parallel ITC proceeding.
• September 3, 2025: The Director of the USPTO issued discretionary denials for institution in several IPRs (IPR2025-00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879) involving Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. as the Patent Owner. These denials were based on considerations such as parallel ITC investigations, the timing of the IPRs relative to the ITC trial, potential duplication of effort, and the "settled expectations" for patents that had been in force for several years. While these IPRs did not involve patent 7,288,822, they illustrate the types of procedural grounds that could lead to an IPR being "Not Instituted - Procedural" for Marlin Semiconductor's patents.

Final Disposition/Present Posture:

For IPR2026-00058, the proceeding concluded at the pre-institution stage with a procedural denial. The PTAB did not proceed to a trial on the merits for Patent No. 7,288,822. No active or concluded patent infringement litigation specifically involving Patent No. 7,288,822 and Marlin Semiconductor Limited has been found.

The petitioner in IPR2026-00058 is not publicly identified in the available search results, and the petition was denied on procedural grounds before the case proceeded to a trial on the merits. Due to this procedural denial and lack of detailed public records for the specific IPR, the counsel of record for the petitioner cannot be identified at this time.

The case status "Not Instituted - Procedural" indicates that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) dismissed the petition based on procedural issues, rather than reaching a decision on the merits of the patentability challenge. Such procedural denials can occur for various reasons, including issues with real parties in interest (RPIs), timeliness, or other administrative deficiencies. In some instances, particularly with early procedural dismissals, the petitioner's identity or their counsel may not be extensively detailed in public records, or the petition may have been deemed non-compliant at an initial stage.

Marlin Semiconductor Limited is the Patent Owner (analogous to the defendant in an infringement case) for the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,288,822. Marlin Semiconductor Limited has been involved in other Inter Partes Review proceedings, often with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC) as the petitioner. In those cases, TSMC has utilized in-house counsel such as Billie Chen, Michael M. Shen, and David C. Hsia, for patent litigation. However, this information pertains to different IPRs and does not identify the petitioner for IPR2026-00058.

Marlin Semiconductor Limited, the patent owner in IPR2026-00058, was likely represented by counsel from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. and Fish & Richardson P.C. This conclusion is drawn from their representation of Marlin Semiconductor Limited in closely related and contemporaneous inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation challenging Marlin's semiconductor patent portfolio.

While a complete list of counsel of record for IPR2026-00058 specifically is not explicitly detailed in the public records for this procedurally denied case, William Meunier is broadly listed as counsel for Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. in PTAB decisions. Additionally, attorneys from both firms represented Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. in IPR2025-00848, an IPR involving Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. as Patent Owner and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. as Petitioner. The Mintz firm also represents Marlin Semiconductor Limited as lead counsel in an ITC investigation (337-TA-1443) concerning semiconductor devices, which names many of the same petitioners as the IPRs.

Based on these related cases, the following attorneys are identified as likely counsel representing Marlin Semiconductor Limited:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

• William A. Meunier - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Note: Represents patent owners in inter partes review proceedings.
• Michael T. Renaud - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Note: An intellectual property litigator and patent strategist, he frequently manages parallel litigations in U.S. Federal District Courts, the ITC, and global jurisdictions. He is lead counsel for Marlin Semiconductor and Longitude Licensing in an ITC investigation (337-TA-1443) and companion district court cases concerning semiconductor devices.
• Adam S. Rizk - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Note: Represented Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. in related IPR proceedings.
• Reza Dokhanchy - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., San Diego, CA.
  • Note: Represented Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. in related IPR proceedings.
• Tawfik Goma - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Miami, FL.
  • Note: Represented Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. in related IPR proceedings.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• W. Karl Renner - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN.
  • Note: Represented Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. in related IPR proceedings.
• Thomas A. Rozylowicz - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN.
  • Note: Represented Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. in related IPR proceedings.
• Usman Khan - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC.
  • Note: Represented Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. in related IPR proceedings.
• David Hoffman - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX (often appears in WDTX).
  • Note: Focuses on patent litigation and inter partes review proceedings, having appeared in more than 60 IPRs. His technical background includes working in semiconductor wafer fabrication.

It should be noted that IPR2026-00058 was "Not Instituted - Procedural", meaning the board did not proceed to a full trial on the merits. This status typically limits the extent of publicly available filings from the patent owner. The identified attorneys were actively involved in other contemporaneous IPRs and ITC actions for Marlin Semiconductor Limited, making their involvement in the early stages of IPR2026-00058 highly probable.