Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited v. Semisilicon Technology Corp.

I'll research this case. Note up front that the metadata describes an IPR at the PTAB, not a district court infringement action — so I'll verify the precise procedural posture and the underlying litigation before drafting.

I have the core IPR facts. Now let me dig into the parties, the underlying dispute, and related litigation/reexamination.

Let me pin down the petitioner's identity/RPIs, the parallel IPR outcome, and Semisilicon's broader enforcement campaign.

Important framing correction

The case metadata is authoritative, so the first thing to flag: IPR2024-00157 is not a district-court infringement suit. It is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Alexandria, VA), filed 2023-11-08 and terminated in 2024 after institution was denied. There is therefore no district, division, or Article III judge for this docket — the decision-makers were Administrative Patent Judges Boudreau, McShane, and Reagan — and the party roles are inverted from a typical infringement case: the petitioner is Xu Peicheng, and the patent owner/defendant-in-interest is Semisilicon. The "underlying litigation" that gives the IPR its context is Semisilicon's separate, ongoing district-court enforcement campaign (described in paragraph 3). I flag below where facts are contested or I could not verify them.

1. The parties

Semisilicon Technology Corp. (Jhonghe, Taipei County, Taiwan) is an operating company — a Taiwanese fabless designer of LED driver/control ICs and addressable-LED solutions (its name appears as assignee and applicant on a family of LED-driving patents, including U.S. 8,124,988, 8,884,546, and published applications such as US 2021/0136892 and US 2022/0086986). It is the patent owner here; inventor of the '988 patent is Jacky Peng. Semisilicon is represented in this IPR by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (lead: Ming-Tao Yang; backup: Joshua L. Goldberg and Kai Rajan). Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited is the petitioner — a Hong Kong/Chinese optoelectronics supplier. In the companion IPR2024-00156 it identified itself and Shenzhen Yuyixin Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. as real parties in interest, which signals that the petitioner is a China-based LED supplier challenging Semisilicon's patents defensively (likely for itself and downstream sellers). Petitioner's counsel is Rimon P.C. (John Handy, Reg. No. 68,906; Jason Xu), and its expert is Dr. E. Fred Schubert of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a prominent LED/solid-state-lighting academic. Caveat: I could not verify in the retrieved sources the precise corporate relationship between Xu Peicheng, Shenzhen Yuyixin, and the Jutai-manufactured products accused in Semisilicon's district-court suits — that linkage is plausible but unconfirmed; treat it as unverified.

2. The IPR itself — patent, grounds, and outcome

The challenged patent is U.S. 8,124,988 B2, "Light Emitting Diode Lamp Package Structure and Assembly Thereof" (App. No. 12/153,910; filed May 28, 2008; issued Feb. 28, 2012; inventor Jacky Peng; assignee Semisilicon). Technically, the '988 patent claims a packaged, individually addressable "smart" LED lamp: a plurality of LEDs and a control IC encapsulated with four conductive supports/pads — Vdd, data-in, data-out, and Vss — so that external control data can set each lamp's illumination and pass data to the next lamp in a string, plus a lamp assembly (lampshade, socket, mount). This is essentially the architecture of modern addressable/serial-cascade LED pixels used in holiday light strings, LED curtain lights, and TV ambient backlighting. Petitioner challenged claims 1–17, 20, and 21 across seven grounds, leaning heavily on Chinese Patent CN201017882Y ("Lai"), plus Stoyan (US 2008/0087903), Morgan (US 2004/0240890), Allsop (US 2006/0012978), and Yan (US 7,473,933). On May 20, 2024 the Board denied institution (Paper 9), reasoning that the petition effectively conceded a structural difference between the "pins" disclosed in Lai and the "pads" recited in the '988 claims, and never explained why a POSITA would substitute pads for pins or regard the two as interchangeable; because the dependent claims fell with independent claim 1, the Lai-based grounds failed as a whole. Petitioner's request for rehearing (Paper 11, June 18, 2024) was denied September 16, 2024 (Paper 12), and the post-institution fee of $22,500 was refunded (Papers 13–14, Sept. 18–20, 2024). The most notable wrinkle: petitioner argued the Board abused its discretion because the USPTO had already ordered a parallel ex parte reexamination, Control No. 90/015,328, on Feb. 15, 2024, listing eight "substantial new questions" — the first being that Lai anticipates claims 1–3, 5–12, and 23–24 of the '988 patent. That is a genuine, and unusual, divergence between the Board (no reasonable likelihood) and the reexam examiner (substantial new question) on the same prior art. The companion IPR2024-00156 (same parties, U.S. 8,884,546, "Driving Apparatus for Light-Emitting Diode Curtain Lamp") went the other way — it was instituted May 20, 2024, and a Final Written Decision issued May 14, 2025 in which the Board stated Petitioner had "demonstrated, by a preponderance…" (the retrieved excerpt is truncated, but the language indicates at least some challenged claims of the '546 patent were held unpatentable). I could not retrieve the EPR's final outcome.

3. Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters

Because this is a PTAB proceeding, "venue" is statutory rather than geographic, but the venue question that matters lives in Semisilicon's separate infringement suits, which are the real-world context for the IPR. Semisilicon has been running a multi-front enforcement campaign against sellers of LED lighting products: (i) Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. Amazon-hosted sellers/Jutai, N.D. Ill. No. 1:25-cv-07388 (filed Mar. 19, 2025), asserting the '935 ("Light Emitting Diode System With Light Signals Carried Via Power Lines") and '117 patents — where the court rejected Semisilicon's preliminary-injunction motion, faulted its "skeletal," Amazon-screenshot-based infringement showings, questioned whether it had been forum-shopping after dismissals in N.D. Cal., and pressed personal jurisdiction over Chinese defendants under Rule 4(k)(2); (ii) Semisilicon v. Jutai, Haoluo, Yihai Yangtian, Feixin (C.D. Cal., Case No. 3:25-cv-02665), accusing Jutai-manufactured LED string products sold under the EEW and BHCLIGHT brands; (iii) Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic LLC, D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-01566, asserting this same '988 patent against the ION Audio "Uber Boom Ultra" Bluetooth speaker and other LED-lit ION Audio products; and (iv) Aura Labs Inc. v. Semisilicon, W.D. Wash. No. 2:26-cv-01297 (Apr. 15, 2026), a declaratory-judgment/tortious-interference action after Semisilicon's Amazon takedown notice over the '546 patent. Why the case is notable: (1) it is a defensive IPR by a Chinese/HK supplier against a Taiwanese operating company's LED-control portfolio — a growing pattern in consumer LED-lighting/addressable-pixel supply chains, where takedown notices and Amazon-driven enforcement push overseas suppliers to the PTAB; (2) it produced a clean denial on a narrow "pin vs. pad" claim-construction-adjacent ground, showing how easily a technically thin petition can fail even where the examiner later found substantial new questions; (3) the simultaneous IPR denial and EPR grant on the same Lai reference is exactly the kind of PTAB/USPTO tension that practitioners watch, and it underscores why reexamination can be a viable alternative channel when IPR institution is denied; and (4) the market stakes are large — addressable LED control is the backbone of holiday/curtain lighting, pixel strips, and TV ambient backlighting, with visible spillover into consumer electronics (Bluetooth speakers) and Amazon-channel enforcement. That said, the outcome of the parallel reexamination and any estoppel/collateral consequences for the district-court cases are not established by the sources I could retrieve; those should be confirmed directly from the '328 reexamination file and the live district-court dockets before relying on them.

Key sources: PTAB docket IPR2024-00157 (Papers 9, 11, 12, 13, 14) via Docket Alarm/UniCourt; Petitioner's Request for Rehearing (June 18, 2024); Board's Decision Denying Rehearing (Sept. 16, 2024); IPR2024-00156 Final Written Decision (Paper 34, May 14, 2025); Semisilicon's N.D. Ill. PI/jurisdiction opinion (Dkt. 53, No. 1:25-cv-07388) via Justia.

I'll build on the prior sections, which already established that this docket is a PTAB inter partes review rather than a district-court suit. For this task I'll treat the "litigation" as (a) the contested IPR proceeding itself and (b) the parallel Article III litigation that gives it context — and verify the chronology with fresh searches.

Good grounding. Now let me verify the companion IPR outcome, the reexam, and the district-court tracks.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — IPR2024-00157 (and the parallel litigation it sits inside)

Framing reminder (consistent with the earlier sections): the docket you asked about, IPR2024-00157, is a PTAB inter partes review, not an infringement suit. It therefore produced no complaint, answer, counterclaims, Markman, discovery, trial, verdict, or JMOL — those categories have to be answered either (a) by the PTAB analogues that actually occurred, or (b) by the parallel Article III cases that constitute the real "litigation" here. I do both below, and I flag where facts are unverified.

---

Part A — Chronology of IPR2024-00157 itself (the docket you specified)

Final disposition — and a metadata caveat. The case metadata lists termination as 2024-05-20 (the institution-denial date), and docket aggregators show the case as "Terminated May 20, 2024" / "Closed – Judgment Entered." Both are automated classifications. The docket activity continued through 2024-09-20 (rehearing denial + fee refund), and the PTAB's "termination" here is not an Article III judgment — no claim was cancelled, no patent was invalidated, and no estoppel attached. UniCourt's "Judgment Entered" label is a case-type tag, not a ruling; treat it as a mischaracterization.

Appeal: none, and none was realistically available. A denial of institution is not appealable as of right — 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) plus Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee make the § 314(a) institution determination "nonappealable." No Federal Circuit appeal of IPR2024-00157 appears on any docket I could retrieve. The remedies left to Petitioner were the pending reexamination and/or a fresh IPR petition; I found no follow-on IPR on the '988 patent.

---

Part B — Parallel PTAB proceeding on the asserted family

IPR2024-00156 — Xu Peicheng v. Semisilicon, U.S. 8,884,546 ("Driving Apparatus for Light-Emitting Diode Curtain Lamp")

• Filed 2023-11-08 (same day as the -157 petition), same parties, same Rimon/Finnegan teams, same expert (Schubert vs. Dr. Michael Lebby for PO).
• Instituted 2024-05-20 (35 U.S.C. § 314) — the same day the Board refused to institute -157. Panel: Boudreau, Cass, McShane, Reagan.
• Post-institution: PO Response (Paper 14) + Lebby Declaration (Ex. 2001); Petitioner Reply (Paper 17) + Schubert Reply Declaration (Ex. 1010); PO Sur-reply (Paper 20); oral hearing 2025-02-24 (Paper 28).
• Final Written Decision entered 2025-05-14 (Paper 34, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)). Docket status: "Final Written Decision"; case terminated that date.
• Outcome caveat: the retrieved excerpt of the FWD reads "we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance…" before truncating, which indicates at least some challenged claims of the '546 patent were held unpatentable (challenged claims were 1–6 and 8). I could not retrieve the operative decretal language, so I cannot confirm which claims were cancelled or whether any survived. If that matters, pull Paper 34 directly from PTAB E2E/PTACTS. No Federal Circuit appeal of the '546 FWD appears in my sources (unverified).

Ex parte reexamination 90/015,328 — the '988 patent (control track)

• Ordered 2024-02-15 with eight SNQs; SNQ #1 covers Lai anticipating claims 1–3, 5–12, 23–24.
• This is the direct conflict with the Board's denial and the centerpiece of the rehearing request. The Board rejected the argument (Paper 12).
• Outcome of the reexamination is NOT established in any source I could retrieve. No reexamination certificate (or claim cancellation) is confirmed. This is the single most important open item in the case — a certificate cancelling claims would materially change the exposure in the Semisilicon enforcement campaign. Do not assume an outcome.

Net PTAB effect on the litigation: the -157 denial means U.S. 8,124,988 remains fully alive and un-IPR-tested so far as the Board is concerned; the only live validity challenge to it is the '328 reexamination. The '546 patent, by contrast, took a likely invalidity hit before the Board in -156 (pending verification), which is directly relevant to the Aura Labs DJ action and the Amazon enforcement campaign.

---

Part C — The actual infringement litigation (the Article III tracks that give this IPR its context)

There is no district-court docket captioned Xu Peicheng v. Semisilicon — Xu Peicheng never sued. Semisilicon is the plaintiff across the board.

1. Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC, D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-01566 (Judge Gregory B. Williams) — the '988 patent case. This is the only case that asserts the patent at issue in this IPR.

• Complaint filed 2025-12-29 (jury demand; '988 asserted against the ION Audio "Uber Boom Ultra" Bluetooth speaker and dozens of other LED-lit ION Audio products; annotated teardown photo of the accused LED package).
• Waiver of service sent 2026-01-21; Notice of Appearance by Jeffrey L. Moyer (Richards, Layton & Finger) for inMusic 2026-03-20; answer deadlines extended by stipulation to 2026-04-22, then 2026-05-06 (Dkt. 9).
• Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed 2026-05-06 (Dkt. 10); case terminated by Judge Williams 2026-05-07 (Dkt. 11) — i.e., Semisilicon withdrew the '988 case roughly four months after filing, before any answer was due on the merits.
• Strategic read: the dismissal comes on the heels of the Board's refusal to test the '988 patent and while the '328 reexamination is live. The dismissal terms are not in the public docket — whether it was a settlement/license, a covenant not to sue, or a tactical withdrawal is unverified.

2. Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. Changzhou Jutai Electronic Co., Linhai Caiyuan Trading Co., et al., N.D. Ill. No. 1:25-cv-07388 ('935 and '117 patents). The most active front.

• Complaint filed 2025-03-19 (after an earlier N.D. Cal. suit dismissed for failure to effectuate service — defendants' forum-shopping argument).
• Preceded by a 2024-12-23 cease-and-desist letter to Jutai (and by December 2024 infringement notices identifying the '935 patent).
• Motion for preliminary injunction filed 2025-10-21; PI DENIED by opinion at Dkt. 53 (2026). The court held Semisilicon's showing "falls significantly short," criticizing (i) "skeletal," Amazon-screenshot-based infringement analysis that never addressed technical limitations (e.g., the '117 patent's "predetermined voltage"), (ii) reliance on its own pre-suit cease-and-desist letter as evidence (circular), (iii) ~10-month delay between the C&D letter and the PI motion, undermining irreparable harm, and (iv) a "boilerplate" Chi declaration with no concrete damages evidence.
• Personal jurisdiction: the court held the Amazon Defendants expressly assented to jurisdiction (they "do not contest" for purposes of the action only), but Jutai did not — and rejected Semisilicon's stream-of-commerce/Rule 4(k)(2) theories as applied to Jutai, faulting Semisilicon's failure to properly serve. Also pending was Semisilicon's motion for alternative electronic service under Hague Convention/Rule 4(f)(3) (Dkt. 15).
• Court applied Starbucks v. Samsung (602 U.S. 345) clear-showing standard and cited Che v. Shenzhen Ximeikeji (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2026).

3. Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. Jutai, Haoluo, Yihai Yangtian, Feixin, C.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-02665. Complaint asserts the '935 and '117 patents against Jutai-manufactured LED string products sold under the EEW (Caiyuan) and BHCLIGHT (Yihai Yangtian) brands; relies on X-ray imaging of accused LED lamps and identification of a PHY6252 control IC. Current posture (transfer, stay, default) not verified.

4. Aura Labs Inc. v. Semisilicon Technology Corp., W.D. Wash. No. 2:26-cv-01297 (filed 2026-04-15). Declaratory judgment/tortious interference action arising from a Semisilicon Amazon takedown notice over the '546 patent — i.e., a direct downstream consequence of the '546 enforcement posture, and potentially of the -156 FWD. Posture unverified.

5. "Xu Peicheng / Shenzhen Yuyixin" linkage: Xu Peicheng identified Shenzhen Yuyixin Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. as a co-RPI in IPR2024-00156 (Pet. 84; Paper 6). Whether Xu Peicheng/Yuyixin and the Jutai-manufactured accused Amazon products are the same economic interest is plausible but still unverified — nothing in the retrieved district-court filings names Xu Peicheng or Yuyixin as a defendant.

---

Part D — Mapping the categories you asked for

• Filing & initial pleadings: IPR analogs = Petition (2023-11-08), PO Mandatory Notices (2023-12-26), POPR (2024-02-22). District-court analogs = the four Semisilicon complaints above. No answer or counterclaim on the merits was ever filed in the '988 track — inMusic's deadline was extended twice and then the case was dismissed (2026-05-06).
• Pre-trial motions of substance: in the IPR, the only "motion" was the Request for Rehearing (denied). In the district courts: PI motion denied (N.D. Ill., Dkt. 53), personal-jurisdiction briefing on Rule 4(k)(2)/waiver, Hague Convention alternative-service motion, and a voluntary dismissal in D. Del.
• Motion to transfer / stay pending IPR: none found. Because the -157 petition predated the March 2025 N.D. Ill. suit by 16 months and the '988 D. Del. suit by two years, there was nothing for the IPR to stay; and by the time the '988 case was filed the IPR was long dead. No stay motion appears on any docket I retrieved.
• Claim construction (Markman): none. No Markman in any Semisilicon case found. In the IPR, the Board did not need a formal construction but effectively read claim 1's "pads" against Lai's "pins" and found no interchangeability — a claim-scope-flavored conclusion with potential estoppel-free but persuasive value in the district courts.
• Discovery milestones: none in the IPR — no institution means no § 316 discovery, no Schubert deposition, no PO discovery. The reexamination had no discovery either. The real discovery fight so far is the jurisdictional/discovery skirmish in N.D. Ill. (supplemental briefing, Rule 4(k)(2), Jutai's declaration vs. Semisilicon's stream-of-commerce theory, service disputes).
• Trial, verdict, post-trial motions, fees: none anywhere. No § 285 fee motion found (even though the N.D. Ill. opinion is highly critical of Semisilicon's showing — a possible predicate if defendants move).
• Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal — final disposition: IPR2024-00157 = institution denied, rehearing denied, $22,500 refunded, terminated; no appeal available. The '988 district case = voluntarily dismissed 2026-05-06/07. Overall posture: Semisilicon's enforcement campaign is active but battered — PI denied in N.D. Ill., jurisdiction over Jutai in doubt, the '988 Delaware case abandoned, and the '546 patent likely trimmed at the Board in -156.
• Parallel PTAB effect: IPR2024-00156's FWD (2025-05-14) is the campaign's biggest PTAB event and its likely invalidating effect on the '546 patent feeds directly into the Aura Labs DJ action and the takedown dispute; conversely, IPR2024-00157's denial leaves the '988 patent standing, subject only to the '328 reexamination.

---

Open items requiring direct verification (do not rely without checking)

1. IPR2024-00156 FWD decretal — which of claims 1–6, 8 were held unpatentable; any Fed. Cir. appeal (Paper 34, PTAB E2E).
2. Ex parte reexam 90/015,328 outcome — is a reexamination certificate issued, and were any '988 claims cancelled/confirmed? This is decisive for the '988 patent's value.
3. D. Del. voluntary dismissal terms (Dkt. 10) — with or without prejudice; any license/covenant.
4. C.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-02665 and W.D. Wash. 2:26-cv-01297 live posture.
5. Whether Xu Peicheng/Shenzhen Yuyixin is economically linked to the Jutai-manufactured accused products — the missing link that would explain the defensive IPR strategy.
6. Metadata vs. docket: the metadata's "Terminated 2024-05-20" understates post-denial activity through 2024-09-20; and UniCourt's "Judgment Entered" tag is an automated label, not a ruling.

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioner in this IPR proceeding.

I found the key filing. Let me confirm the petitioner's power of attorney and mandatory notices, plus attorney backgrounds.

Let me confirm the petitioner's own mandatory notices and power of attorney identifying all counsel.

Counsel of Record for the Petitioner (Plaintiff-Side Party)

Party represented: Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited — the Petitioner in IPR2024-00157 (the party occupying the plaintiff-side role; the caption lists Semisilicon Technology Corp. as Patent Owner). All counsel appearing for the Petitioner are from Rimon P.C. (a/k/a Rimon Law).

---

1. John Handy — Lead/signing counsel for Petitioner

Notable matters from his firm bio: Kologik Capital, LLC v. In Force Technology, LLC (D. Mass.) — won summary judgment of non-infringement; Shenzhen Tange Li'An E-Commerce Co. v. Drone Whirl LLC (W.D. Tex.) — early judgment on the pleadings that the asserted patent was invalid; BelAir Electronics v. Carved Inc. (N.D. Ind.) and BelAir Electronics v. Caseable Inc. (D. Del.); Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com (E.D. Tex.). He also represented a patent-monetization plaintiff in 20+ district court suits.

---

2. Jason Xu (徐亮) — Additional counsel for Petitioner

Notable matters from his firm bio: Kamino v. Anker (W.D. Tex.), LedComm v. Anker (C.D. Cal.), Personal Audio v. Google (E.D. Tex./D. Del.), Eolas v. Amazon (Walmart), Coffelt v. Autodesk (C.D. Cal. — § 101 dismissal affirmed through cert denial), and ITC investigations Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789, MStar) and Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-709, Panasonic).

---

Important caveats and sourcing notes

• Lead vs. backup designation is not fully confirmed. I was able to retrieve the Patent Owner's filings naming its own counsel with explicit "Lead Counsel / Back-Up Counsel" designations, but the Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Paper 2, filed Nov. 8, 2023) and Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 4, filed Dec. 17, 2023) are the filings that would formally designate the Petitioner's lead and backup counsel. Those documents are listed on the docket but are behind paywalled/scanned images, so I could not read their internal role designations. The role assignment above (Handy as signer/lead, Xu as additional/service counsel) is inferred from (a) Handy's signature as "Counsel for Petitioner" on Papers 10, 11, and 13, and (b) both attorneys being listed as Petitioner's counsel in Patent Owner's certificate of service. If a precise lead/back-up split matters, Papers 2 and 4 should be pulled directly from PTAB E2E.
• No in-house counsel has appeared on the docket for the Petitioner, and none is identified in any retrieved filing.
• No "local counsel" — the PTAB does not require a local-counsel appearance, and none is designated.
• Nothing appears sealed in the filings I reviewed; the limitation is document-access paywalls, not sealing.
• Parallel proceedings: The same Rimon team filed the companion petition IPR2024-00156 (U.S. Patent No. 8,884,546), also against Semisilicon, and both petitions relied on the declaration of Dr. E. Fred Schubert (identified in his expert-witness CV as having served on behalf of Xu Peicheng, retaining firm "Rimon Law PC, McLean VA"). A related ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/015,328) of the '988 patent was ordered Feb. 15, 2024 (Ex. 1014), and the Petitioner argued on rehearing that the '328 EPR's findings on the Lai reference conflicted with the Board's denial of institution.
• For contrast, the Patent Owner (Semisilicon) is represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP — lead counsel Ming-Tao Yang (Palo Alto, Reg. No. 62,019), back-up Joshua L. Goldberg and Kai Rajan (Washington, DC). That is the opposing side, not the plaintiff-side counsel asked about here.

Primary sources: PTAB docket for IPR2024-00157 (Papers 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14); Petitioner's Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fees (Paper 13, Sept. 18, 2024) signed "/s/ John Handy, Registration No. 68,906, RIMON P.C., McLean, VA"; Petitioner's Updated Exhibit List (Paper 10, June 18, 2024); Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 7, Feb. 21, 2024) with certificate of service naming Handy and Xu; Rimon firm bios for John Handy and Jason Xu; Rimon press release (Aug. 28, 2023) announcing Handy's arrival.

I'll research the counsel of record for Semisilicon Technology Corp. (the patent owner / respondent in this IPR).

I have the core record. Let me verify counsel details and gather background on each attorney.

Let me confirm the POPR and mandatory notices counsel listings to ensure completeness.

Counsel of Record — Semisilicon Technology Corp. (Patent Owner / Respondent)

Threshold clarification: IPR2024-00157 is an inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action. There is no "defendant" in the district-court sense — the adverse party whose counsel you're asking about is Semisilicon Technology Corp., the Patent Owner (styled "Respondent" in the PTAB docket). Petitioner Xu Peicheng was represented by John Handy of Rimon P.C. (Registration No. 68,906). All counsel below are Semisilicon's PTAB counsel of record, drawn from the public mandatory notices and the certificate-of-service blocks on the filed papers.

Lead Counsel

Ming-Tao Yang — Lead Counsel

• Firm / office: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, 3300 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203 (Tel. 650-849-6783). USPTO Reg. No. 62,019.
• Note: Finnegan partner and former managing partner of the firm's Palo Alto office; now partner-in-charge of community and belonging. Litigator with 20+ years' experience, described by IAM Patent 1000 as "particularly well known for his complex patent litigation" with a Taiwanese-client focus; has handled IPRs and LED/IC/semiconductor matters. Registered to practice in CA, DC, and before the USPTO.

Back-Up Counsel

Joshua L. Goldberg — Back-Up Counsel

• Firm / office: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, 901 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001-4413 (Tel. 202-408-6092). USPTO Reg. No. 59,369.
• Note: Former leader of Finnegan's PTAB trials section; one of the most prolific PTAB practitioners in the country, with lead or backup counsel roles in 350+ IPRs/CBMs/PGRs. Vice president of the PTAB Bar Association and co-editor of The Practitioner's Guide to Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ABA); recognized among the top PTAB attorneys by Managing IP and Docket Navigator.

Kai Rajan — Back-Up Counsel (added by notice dated February 21, 2024)

• Firm / office: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, 901 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001-4413 (Tel. 202-408-4307). USPTO Reg. No. 70,110.
• Note: Finnegan attorney focused on patent portfolio development, litigation, and post-grant proceedings; former USPTO patent examiner (six years, lead examiner of his group). Listed in Best Lawyers "Ones to Watch" (Litigation – Patent, 2024) and named a standout associate in Legal 500 U.S.; experience includes the BMW/Carrum and SharkNinja/iRobot post-grant campaigns.

Sources and caveats

• The counsel roster is established by Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices (Paper 6, filed Dec. 26, 2023) and Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 7, filed Feb. 21, 2024), which added Mr. Rajan as back-up counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3).
• The same three names reappear as "attorneys of record for the Patent Owner" in Petitioner's certificates of service through the close of the proceeding (e.g., Petitioner's Updated Exhibit List, June 18, 2024; Petitioner's Request for Refund, Sept. 18, 2024), confirming no substitution of counsel occurred.
• No local counsel and no in-house counsel were designated in the PTAB filings — PTAB practice does not require local counsel, and no company attorney appears on the notices.
• The underlying Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 8, Feb. 22, 2024) and the mandatory notices are public, so nothing here rests on sealed material. However, I was working from secondary docket aggregators (Docket Alarm, UniCourt, PTAB's PTACTS document viewer) rather than direct PACER/PTAB E2F retrieval, so the filing dates quoted should be spot-checked against the docket sheet if precision matters.
• For context only: Semisilicon uses different counsel in its district-court campaigns on related patents (e.g., Ni, Wang & Massand in E.D. Tex.; McCarter & English in D. Del.), so do not conflate those appearances with the PTAB team above.

Bottom line: Semisilicon's PTAB team on IPR2024-00157 was Ming-Tao Yang (lead, Finnegan – Palo Alto) with Joshua L. Goldberg and Kai Rajan (back-up, Finnegan – Washington, DC).