Apple Inc. et al. v. MYW Semitech LLC

Apple Inc. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00067) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against MYW Semitech LLC, challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,894,306. The Petitioners, Apple Inc., a global technology giant known for its consumer electronics, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd. (TSMC), a leading dedicated semiconductor foundry, are operating companies. The Patent Owner, MYW Semitech LLC, appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), given its pattern of asserting patents against major tech companies.

This IPR is directly linked to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit, MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504), filed on April 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In that litigation, MYW Semitech alleges that Apple's A-series and S-series processors, integral to numerous Apple products like iPhones, infringe three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,894,306, which relates to advanced semiconductor chip packaging technology. Specifically, the patents concern "fan-out wafer-level packaging (FOWLP)," a method designed to create smaller, more powerful, and more efficient integrated circuits by redistributing input/output connections on a carrier layer, crucial for modern mobile devices. U.S. Patent No. 11,894,306, titled "Chip Package" and issued on February 6, 2024, describes a chip package structure designed for high-density connections in semiconductor devices, often utilizing a "solid layer" (e.g., glass) with conductive plugs.

The procedural posture involves an IPR at the PTAB that has been instituted. This administrative proceeding allows for challenges to the validity of patent claims based on prior art. The associated district court case in Delaware, presided over by Judge Richard G. Andrews and referred to Magistrate Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson, is a significant venue for patent litigation. The case is notable for several reasons, including MYW Semitech LLC's role as a potential NPE asserting fundamental semiconductor packaging technology against industry leaders. Furthermore, Apple's attempt to secure a stay of the district court proceedings pending the PTAB's institution decision for its IPRs was denied by Judge Andrews in January 2026, who explicitly stated he would "not grant a stay in order to increase [the defendant]'s chances of getting an IPR instituted." This denial highlights the strategic interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges and the court's stance on discretionary stays. Apple and TSMC have filed multiple IPRs against MYW Semitech's related patent family, demonstrating a coordinated effort to address the validity of these asserted patents.

The patent infringement lawsuit, MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, concerns MYW Semitech's allegations that Apple's A-series and S-series processors infringe three patents related to advanced semiconductor chip packaging technology, including U.S. Patent No. 11,894,306.

Here's a breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: MYW Semitech LLC filed its complaint against Apple Inc. on April 24, 2025, in the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,107,768; 11,538,763; and 11,894,306, all titled "Chip Package" and relating to "fan-out wafer-level packaging (FOWLP)" technology.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: Apple filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the institution decisions for its Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) challenging MYW Semitech's patents. Judge Richard G. Andrews denied this motion in January 2026, explicitly stating that a stay would not be granted to increase Apple's chances of IPR institution. This denial underscores the court's view on the strategic use of stays in relation to PTAB proceedings.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR Institution: One of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 11,894,306, is currently subject to an instituted IPR (IPR2026-00067) initiated by Apple Inc. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd. This IPR is ongoing before the PTAB.

The case remains active and is currently in the ongoing litigation phase, with no final disposition, trial, or appeal outcomes yet reported.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["MYW Semitech LLC v. Apple Inc. 1:25-cv-00504 counsel of record", "MYW Semitech LLC v. Apple Inc. Delaware patent litigation counsel", "Apple Inc. IPR2026-00067 counsel", "Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd. IPR2026-00067 counsel", "Apple Inc. patent litigation counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in the patent infringement case MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504).
The plaintiff in that case is MYW Semitech, LLC.
The provided case summary states that Apple Inc. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd. are the Petitioners (plaintiffs in the IPR) and MYW Semitech LLC is the Patent Owner (defendant in the IPR).
However, the current task asks for the plaintiff(s) in the patent infringement case, which is MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc., where MYW Semitech, LLC is the plaintiff. I need to be careful to distinguish between the plaintiff in the district court case and the petitioners/patent owner in the IPR.

Let's re-read the prompt carefully: "Identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in this patent infringement case."
The "this case" refers to "Apple Inc. et al. v. MYW Semitech LLC, IPR2026-00067".
The previously generated sections clarify the "underlying patent infringement lawsuit, MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504)".
The prompt is asking for the counsel for the plaintiff(s) in the patent infringement case. The plaintiff in the patent infringement case is MYW Semitech, LLC.

So I need to find the counsel for MYW Semitech LLC in MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504).

I will search for counsel for MYW Semitech LLC in the specified district court case.
I will look for lead counsel, local counsel, and potentially "of counsel" or "in-house" if applicable for MYW Semitech.
I need to include firm and office location, and a one-line note on relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases.

Search queries:
"MYW Semitech LLC v. Apple Inc. 1:25-cv-00504 counsel for MYW Semitech"
"MYW Semitech LLC patent litigation attorneys"
"Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP patent litigation" (as a common local counsel in DE)
"Fisch Sigler LLP patent litigation" (if they appear as a lead counsel)
"Lee & Hayes PLLC patent litigation" (if they appear as a lead counsel)

Let's refine the search to be very specific to the district court case and the plaintiff (MYW Semitech LLC).The counsel of record representing the plaintiff, MYW Semitech LLC, in the patent infringement case MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504) are from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC.

The identified attorneys are:

• Stamatios Stamoulis
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Mr. Stamoulis is a founding member of Stamoulis & Weinblatt and has extensive experience in patent and other complex commercial litigation in the District of Delaware.
• Richard C. Weinblatt
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Mr. Weinblatt is also a founding member of Stamoulis & Weinblatt and frequently appears in patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware. Filings in this case, such as proposed scheduling orders and initial disclosures, were made by Mr. Weinblatt.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["MYW Semitech LLC v. Apple Inc. 1:25-cv-00504 Delaware docket counsel", "MYW Semitech LLC counsel of record", "MYW Semitech LLC patent litigation attorneys", "Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP MYW Semitech", "Faber Tureaud Myers P.A. MYW Semitech", "Richard G. Andrews MYW Semitech LLC counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in the patent infringement case MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504).
However, the prompt states: "Identify the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case." and the case metadata at the top states "Plaintiff(s): Apple Inc.; Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd. Defendant(s): MYW Semitech LLC". This is a contradiction. The case number IPR2026-00067 is an IPR, where Apple and TSMC are Petitioners (like plaintiffs) and MYW Semitech is the Patent Owner (like defendant).

However, the question itself references "this patent infringement case" and the case number 1:25-cv-00504, where MYW Semitech is the plaintiff and Apple is the defendant.
Given the previous sections already provided, specifically "Case overview & background" and "Key legal developments & outcome", it is clear that the underlying patent infringement lawsuit is MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504), where MYW Semitech is the Plaintiff and Apple Inc. is the Defendant.

The current task asks to "Identify the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case." which means I need to identify the counsel representing Apple Inc. in MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504).

I need to search for "Apple Inc. counsel MYW Semitech LLC v. Apple Inc. 1:25-cv-00504 Delaware" and look for attorney appearances in the district court docket. I will specifically look for "defendant's counsel" or "counsel for Apple Inc."

Let's refine the search queries to focus on the district court case and Apple's counsel.
I will search for counsel for Apple Inc. in case 1:25-cv-00504.In the patent infringement case MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00504) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the following counsel represents defendant Apple Inc.:

• Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
  • Firm: (Information not explicitly provided in the search results, but typically large technology companies like Apple use a combination of national patent litigation firms and local Delaware counsel).
  • Note: Further specific details about individual attorneys, their roles (lead, local, in-house), and firms could not be definitively identified from the provided search snippets. Docket searches on PACER or firm websites would typically be required to ascertain the specific individuals who have entered appearances for Apple and their respective firms and office locations. While the search results confirm the representation of Apple Inc., the detailed breakdown for each attorney is not available.