Litigation

Microchip Technology Inc. v. HD Silicon Solutions LLC

institution denied

IPR2021-00872

Auto-generating section 1 of 4: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed: 2021-05-28
Terminated: 2021-12-15

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Microchip Technology Inc.

Defendants (1)

Δ HD Silicon Solutions LLC

Summary

Microchip Technology Inc. filed an inter partes review petition against HD Silicon Solutions LLC challenging U.S. Patent 7,302,619. The PTAB denied institution on December 15, 2021.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7302619-ipr2021-00872 · edit in Admin

Further reading

AI prior art search tools: a 2026 buyer's guide for defendants
AI doesn't replace a patent attorney's judgment. It does replace the search step that used to cost $20,000 and take three weeks.
Patent term and expiration
Patents don't last forever. They don't even reliably last 20 years. The expiration date that actually matters depends on the earliest filing date, the maintenance schedule, and any USPTO or FDA delays the patent owner can claim back.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.
IPR estoppel: the trade-off behind the cheapest invalidity tool
File your strongest art, file it well — or don't file at all if your strongest grounds aren't patents and publications. Estoppel is what makes IPR powerful for the system and dangerous for the defendant who underprepares.
Lumen View v. FindTheBest (2013-2016): when a defendant fought back, the troll paid
Same patent. Same plaintiff playbook. Different outcome — because the defendant had the resources and the will to fight. Most don't. That's the asymmetry this site is built to fix.

All resources →