Unified Patents, LLC v. MYW Semitech, LLC

Unified Patents, LLC has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00065, against MYW Semitech, LLC, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,107,768, which has been instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents is a member-based organization focused on deterring non-practicing entities (NPEs), often referred to as "patent trolls," from asserting what they consider to be poor-quality patents against operating companies. They achieve this by monitoring NPE activity and filing IPRs to challenge patent validity, without paying money to NPEs or licensing their patents. Conversely, MYW Semitech, LLC appears to operate as a patent assertion entity, having acquired patents and subsequently filed infringement lawsuits against major technology companies. While one source classifies them as an "Operating Company," their litigation patterns, including asserting the patent at issue against Apple, are consistent with an NPE model.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,107,768, titled "Chip Package," issued on August 31, 2021. It technically describes a chip package structure built upon a polymer layer that incorporates vertical electrical pathways ("metal plugs" passing through "through vias"). An interconnection scheme is fabricated on this layer to route signals between the metal plugs and a semiconductor chip. This invention relates to fan-out wafer-level packaging (FOWLP), a crucial technology for creating smaller, more powerful, and energy-efficient integrated circuits, particularly for complex processors in compact devices. Although only Patent 11,107,768 is directly at issue in this IPR, MYW Semitech, LLC has also asserted two related "Chip Package" patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,538,763 and 11,894,306) in parallel district court litigation against Apple Inc., alleging infringement by Apple's A-series and S-series processors.

This IPR proceeding is taking place before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with institution granted on May 6, 2026. The PTAB provides an administrative forum for challenging patent validity, which Unified Patents frequently utilizes as a cost-effective strategy to counter NPE assertions and reduce frivolous patent litigation, thereby benefiting its members and the broader technology industry. The case is notable due to its direct linkage to ongoing district court litigation, MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc. (1:25-cv-00504, D. Del.), where the asserted patent pertains to fundamental semiconductor packaging technology. Notably, the District of Delaware court previously denied Apple's request for a pre-institution stay, explicitly stating that it would not grant a stay merely to increase the chances of IPR institution. With the IPR now instituted, it could lead to renewed requests for a stay in the district court case, potentially impacting the trajectory of the broader patent dispute involving critical components for modern electronics.

Unified Patents, LLC, initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding against MYW Semitech, LLC, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,107,768. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has granted institution for this IPR.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes to date:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Unified Patents, LLC, filed its Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00065, on November 21, 2025, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,107,768. [cite: 7, 8 in previous turn] The patent is associated with Patent Owner Application No. 16/752,650. MYW Semitech, LLC, as the Patent Owner, would have had an opportunity to file a Preliminary Response to the Petition, though specific details of such a filing are not publicly available without direct docket access.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

  • On May 6, 2026, the PTAB issued a Decision on Institution, granting the petition to institute an inter partes review. This decision means the Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,107,768 is unpatentable. Details regarding the specific claims and grounds instituted are contained within the full institution decision document, which is not publicly available in these search results.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • At the institution stage of an IPR, the PTAB typically construes claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for patents filed before March 13, 2013, or the Phillips standard for post-AIA patents. The specific claim construction applied would be detailed within the institution decision, which has not been publicly accessible in full.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • As of the current date, the case is in the post-institution phase. No specific discovery milestones of strategic significance have been publicly reported. Discovery in IPR proceedings is generally limited compared to district court litigation.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The IPR is currently in the trial phase following institution. No trial events, such as an oral hearing, a final written decision, or post-trial motions, have occurred yet.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The current posture of IPR2026-00065 is "Institution Granted." The case is active, and there has been no settlement, dismissal, final written judgment, or appeal as of May 29, 2026.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • This proceeding, IPR2026-00065, is itself a PTAB IPR. Unified Patents, LLC, is a membership-based organization that frequently files IPRs against patents asserted by non-practicing entities (NPEs) to deter what it considers frivolous patent litigation and to improve patent quality. [cite: 1, 3, 4 (from previous turn)] While not directly a parallel proceeding, it has been noted in the context of Unified Patents' activities that entities like Apple Inc. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd. may be associated with IPR2026-00065, potentially as members of Unified Patents. [cite: 7 (from previous turn)] The Patent Owner, MYW Semitech, LLC, is associated with technology in Tech Center 2800, which covers semiconductors, electrical, and optical systems and components.

Unified Patents, LLC, often utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and outside law firms for its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. While specific counsel for IPR2026-00065 are not directly named in the provided search results, general information about Unified Patents' legal team and past representations can be inferred.

Unified Patents, LLC (In-house Counsel):

• Jonathan Stroud - Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents. He is frequently involved in webinars and discussions related to patent quality and PTAB practice.
• Kelly Hughes - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents. She supports Unified's PTAB practice and appellate practice and has experience in patent litigations. She has been identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings.
• Jennifer Gallagher - (Role not specified, but appears to be an attorney at Unified Patents). She is credited with authoring articles related to IPR and PTAB decisions on Unified Patents' "News & Views" section.
• Roshan Mansinghani - Legal Head-NPE, Unified Patents.
• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Michelle Aspen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Jessica Marks - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Jung Hahm - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Alyssa Holtslander - (Role not specified, but has been identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings).

Unified Patents states that it is not a law firm and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its members, acting independently to deter the assertion of what it considers poor quality patents. However, they do have an internal legal department and hire experienced, registered patent attorneys with significant experience in PTAB proceedings.

Outside Counsel (Examples from other IPRs):

Unified Patents has previously been represented by attorneys from firms such as Haynes and Boone. For example, in a different IPR (Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen), Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Michael McCarty, and Matt Beck (who is now at Unified Patents) of Haynes and Boone represented Unified Patents. This suggests they engage outside firms for their IPR challenges, but the specific firm for IPR2026-00065 is not specified in the provided information.

To definitively identify the counsel of record for IPR2026-00065, direct access to the PTAB docket for this specific case would be necessary, as the provided search results offer general information about Unified Patents' legal representation rather than specific counsel for this particular IPR.

In IPR2026-00065, MYW Semitech, LLC is represented by counsel from Daignault Iyer LLP.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

• Donald L. Jackson (Counsel of Record)
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Office Location: Specific office location for Mr. Jackson at Daignault Iyer LLP is not readily available in the search results, but the firm itself appears in patent litigation records.
  • Note: Mr. Jackson is listed as the counsel of record for MYW Semitech, LLC in the IPR proceeding, and his USPTO registration is noted in a document filed with the PTAB on March 16, 2026.

Additional attorneys associated with MYW Semitech, LLC in related proceedings (specifically, MYW Semitech, LLC v. Apple Inc., 1:25-cv-00504, D. Del.) include:

• Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
  • Office Location: Not specified in the search results, though Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC is a Delaware-based firm.
  • Note: Mr. Weinblatt has actively filed documents on behalf of MYW Semitech, LLC in the parallel district court case against Apple Inc.

• Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
  • Office Location: Not specified in the search results.
  • Note: Also listed as counsel for MYW Semitech LLC in the Delaware district court case against Apple Inc.

• Richard Juang

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated as a firm partner, but associated with MYW Semitech's representation.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the search results.
  • Note: A pro hac vice fee payment was received for Richard Juang in the district court case on May 7, 2025. He is also included in an email chain regarding the IPRs as counsel.

• Chandran B. Iyer

  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the search results.
  • Note: Listed as counsel for MYW Semitech, LLC in the Delaware district court case and included in an email regarding the IPRs.

• Ronald M. Daignault

  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the search results.
  • Note: A pro hac vice fee payment was received for Ronald M. Daignault in the district court case and he is included in an email regarding the IPRs.

• Erin Hadi

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the search results.
  • Note: A pro hac vice fee payment was received for Erin Hadi in the district court case and she is included in an email regarding the IPRs.

• Ray Mort

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the search results.
  • Note: A pro hac vice fee payment was received for Ray Mort in the district court case.

• Taylor Lepore

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the search results.
  • Note: A pro hac vice fee payment was received for Taylor Lepore in the district court case.