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.

I'll research counsel on both sides of the ambiguity here — the plaintiffs in the underlying Delaware infringement suit (MYW Semitech) and, per the case metadata, the petitioners/"plaintiffs" in IPR2026-00067 (Apple/TSMC).

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Side

Threshold correction (flagged per instructions): The case metadata lists "Plaintiff(s): Apple Inc.; TSMC" — that is the IPR petitioner/patent-owner framing for IPR2026-00067. In the underlying patent infringement case (the one this section's question necessarily refers to), MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 1:25-cv-00504-RGA-EGT (D. Del., filed Apr. 24, 2025), MYW Semitech LLC is the plaintiff and Apple is the defendant. The previously generated "Defendant representatives" section correctly tracked Apple. This section therefore identifies MYW Semitech's counsel.

Source for the appearance block: the complaint's signature block, D.I. 1 (Apr. 24, 2025), reproduced at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/16107226 ("Attorneys for Plaintiff MYW Semitech, LLC").

Delaware counsel of record (local counsel)

Lead / trial counsel (national counsel; pro hac vice contemplated)

Caveats and gaps (explicit)

• Pro hac vice status unverified. The complaint lists the six Daignault Iyer attorneys as "pro hac vice to be filed," with asterisks footnoted "*Not admitted in Virginia" (by implication the asterisked attorneys — Daignault, Mort, Lepore, Juang — practice under a DC/other license; Iyer and Hadi are unasterisked). I could not retrieve the actual PHV motions or admission orders from the D. Del. docket within this session, so their formal admission is not confirmed. The Daignault Iyer firm has no Delaware office, which is why S&W appears as local counsel.
• No in-house counsel has appeared for MYW Semitech (it is an NPE with no public in-house litigation team identified).
• Filings are not sealed on this point — the complaint and its counsel block are public; the limitation is docket-access reach, not sealing.
• PTAB-side counsel (Apple/TSMC as petitioners in IPR2026-00067) could not be confirmed. My final search for petitioner counsel hit a tool-call limit before returning results, so I will not name any firm for Apple or TSMC. Petitioners' counsel is normally listed on the face of the petition in PTAB Endpoint/PTAB Center; that should be verified before being stated.
• Discrepancy to note for the legal-developments section: a secondary source (EDTexWeblog) reports a "Judge Barker" granting Apple's renewed stay motion "in this Delaware case" after institution on all three patents, while the D. Del. case is assigned to Judge Andrews (RGA) with Magistrate Judge Tennyson (EGT). Likely either a separate MYW Semitech suit (e.g., an E.D. Tex. action against another defendant) or a blog error; unverified. The D. Del. pre-institution stay denial, by contrast, is well documented (D.I. 59, 60, 65, 68; see https://ipde.com/blog/2026/01/23/i-do-not-think-that-i-should-grant-a-stay-in-order-to-increase-the-defendants-chances-of-getting-an-ipr-instituted/).
• Also note the ex parte case page lists 1:25-cv-00504 as "Status: Closed" — consistent with an administrative closure/stay after institution rather than a merits disposition; this is unconfirmed and should be checked against the docket before being relied on.

I'll research this now. Note the "defendant" here is the defendant in the underlying district court case (MYW Semitech v. Apple, D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-00504), i.e., Apple Inc. — while in the IPR caption Apple/TSMC are petitioners and MYW is the patent owner. Let me search.

Now let me find Apple's defense counsel in the Delaware action and verify via docket sources.

Defendant representatives

Framing note on "defendant." Two different party alignments are in play, and the prior sections only resolved one of them:

• In the IPR (IPR2026-00067), Apple Inc. and TSMC are the petitioners and MYW Semitech LLC is the patent owner — so MYW is the "defendant-side" party at the PTAB.
• In the underlying infringement action, MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 25-504-RGA-EGT (D. Del., filed Apr. 24, 2025), Apple Inc. is the sole defendant. No TSMC entity was named as a defendant in the Delaware complaint (TSMC appears only in the complaint as the maker of the InFO packaging illustrated in the infringement diagrams, Compl. ¶¶22–23), and TSMC's appearance is limited to the PTAB side as co-petitioner.

The prior section identified plaintiff-side counsel (Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Daignault Iyer LLP). Below is the defense side.

Verified / well-sourced

What is documented on the defense side is the substance of Apple's filings, not their signature blocks: Apple moved for a pre-institution stay (D.I. 59), argued in reply that a stay would improve its odds of PTAB institution (D.I. 65 at 2–3), and lost that motion by oral order, MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 25-504-RGA-EGT, D.I. 68 (D. Del. Jan. 21, 2026) ("I do not think that I should grant a stay in order to increase [the defendant]'s chances of getting an IPR instituted."). See the Delaware IP blog summary at https://ipde.com/blog/2026/01/23/i-do-not-think-that-i-should-grant-a-stay-in-order-to-increase-the-defendants-chances-of-getting-an-ipr-instituted/.

Strong lead, but flagged as inference — not confirmed

Apple's regular Delaware patent-defense team is Fish & Richardson P.C., and Fish is the firm that appeared for Apple in the closest parallel case in the same court, MyPort Technologies, Inc. v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 24-1337-JDW (D. Del.). The signature block in Apple's motion-to-dismiss brief in that case lists:

• Roger A. Denning (pro hac vice), Fish & Richardson, San Diego, CA — lead, Apple's PTAB/litigation group
• Susan E. Morrison (D. Del. #4690) and Nitika Gupta Fiorella (D. Del. #5898), Fish & Richardson, 222 Delaware Ave., 17th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801 — Delaware local counsel
• Supporting national team: Joy Backer Kete (San Diego), Kathryn Quisenberry and Jacqueline T. Moran (Houston), Noah C. Graubart and Jenna Kuh (Atlanta/Washington, D.C.), Kyle J. Fleming (New York)

Sources: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.87585/gov.uscourts.ded.87585.20.0.pdf; withdrawal notice referencing Fish continuing as Apple's counsel at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.87585/gov.uscourts.ded.87585.30.0.pdf.

Caveat: this establishes Fish's role for Apple in a different D. Del. case. Apple does split patent work among several firms (Fish, Sterne Kessler, WilmerHale, and others depending on the matter), and local Delaware counsel can vary by case. Do not cite Morrison/Fiorella as counsel of record in 25-504 absent docket confirmation.

PTAB side (IPR2026-00067)

• Petitioners' counsel (Apple/TSMC): not verified. The petition (filed Nov. 21, 2025; instituted May 15, 2026 per RPX, https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/ptab/19948-taiwan-semiconductor-manufacturing-company-v-myw-semitech-llc-ipr-of-306) challenges claims 1–27 under § 103 over Sundaram, Lin-191, Lin-863, Yu, and Camacho. Apple and TSMC may be represented by different firms in the IPR than in Delaware, and TSMC in particular may use separate counsel; no signature block was retrievable.
• Patent owner's counsel (MYW) at the PTAB: likely the same Daignault Iyer LLP team that signed the complaint (Ronald M. Daignault, Chandran Iyer, Richard Juang, Ray Mort, Erin Hadi, Taylor Lepore), but this is unverified for the IPR and should be checked against the patent owner's mandatory notices and power of attorney.
• In-house: no named Apple in-house attorney was located in the public record for this matter.

How to confirm (recommended verification steps)

1. Pull the C.A. No. 25-504-RGA-EGT docket and open Apple's answer to the complaint and Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement — the signature blocks give both local and pro hac vice counsel.
2. Check the stipulated protective order and scheduling order signature pages (D.I. entries in the 20s–40s), which typically list every attorney who will access confidential material, including in-house counsel.
3. For the PTAB, check the power of attorney, mandatory notices, and the institution decision caption in IPR2026-00067, which name lead and back-up counsel for both sides.

Cross-reference flags / possible contradictions

• Case status: at least one aggregator page lists 1:25-cv-00504 as "Closed" (https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/ded/1:25-cv-00504/myw-semitech-llc-v-apple-inc), while the case metadata here says the IPR is "Pending – Instituted" and the prior section describes the litigation as active. A "closed" flag on a D. Del. docket can reflect an administrative closure or a dismissal; it is unverified either way.
• Possible post-institution stay: a snippet attributed to EDTexWeblog states that "Judge Barker granted Apple's renewed motion to stay plaintiff MYW Semitech's patent claims in this Delaware case after the USPTO instituted inter partes review on all three asserted patents." That snippet is internally inconsistent (the presiding judge is Richard G. Andrews, with Magistrate Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson; "Barker" sits in E.D. Tex.), and the page could not be loaded to verify. Treat as unverified, but note it is directionally plausible: the '306 IPR instituted on May 15, 2026, and the January 21, 2026 denial was expressly "without prejudice to renewal should an IPR actually be instituted." If Apple did renew and win a stay in mid-2026, that would materially update the "Key legal developments" section.
• Litigation funding discovery: Apple served third-party subpoenas on Davidson Kempner Capital Management LP and Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC concerning funding of MYW's assertion, as reflected in a subpoena rider defining "this Litigation" as MYW Semitech LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 25-504-RGA (D. Del.) (https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/25-cv-o_suggestion_from_international_legal_finance_association_-_tplf.pdf). This confirms the case number and the three asserted patents ('768, '763, '306) but does not identify Apple's counsel; the subpoenas were likely issued by Apple's Delaware counsel of record, whose identity remains to be confirmed from the docket.