PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 7629634. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial, meaning no claims were invalidated. This gives a defendant a stronger defensive posture against challenges based on the grounds presented in that specific IPR, as the patent owner prevailed at the institution stage.

IPR2025-01433 — Excelliance Mos Corporation v. FORCE MOS TECHNOLOGY Co Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-15
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition was not instituted, and thus no trial was formally commenced or claims adjudicated on the merits).
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges John M. Dellera, Jeffrey P. Aronson, and Elizabeth A. Winston.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,629,634. The grounds were based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references including US 6,888,196 to Kawamura et al. ("Kawamura") and US 6,107,665 to Kim et al. ("Kim").
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-14. The panel exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on its analysis of the Fintiv factors, specifically noting the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation between the same parties involving the same patent. The Board found that the petitioner had not demonstrated that institution was warranted despite the stage of the district court proceeding.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Appeal: The Board's decision denying institution was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-03-12.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means claims 1-9 of the patent have withstood a challenge under specific prior art combinations at the institution stage of an IPR. Any future IPR challenging these same claims using the same prior art grounds, or grounds that reasonably could have been raised, would face estoppel challenges. However, the claims were not adjudicated on the merits, so they were not "sustained" in the sense of surviving a full trial.

Strategic summary

All nine claims (claims 1-9) of US Patent 7629634 remain untested on their merits at the PTAB. In IPR2025-01433, Excelliance Mos Corporation challenged claims 1-9, but the petition was denied institution due to the Fintiv factors, which consider the status of parallel district court litigation. This means the PTAB did not reach the merits of whether the claims were unpatentable.

Estoppel landscape: For Excelliance Mos Corporation (and its privies), 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel would apply to any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01433. Since the institution was denied on Fintiv grounds rather than on the merits, the scope of estoppel might be debated, but generally, a denial of institution can still trigger estoppel, especially if the denial was not purely procedural but involved some review of the merits for institution purposes. The specific prior art combinations (Kawamura and Kim) used to challenge claims 1-9 are likely barred for Excelliance Mos and its privies. Other potential petitioners would still be able to raise these and other prior-art grounds.

Pattern signals: The patent owner, FORCE MOS TECHNOLOGY Co Ltd, successfully defended against the institution of IPR2025-01433. The appeal to the Federal Circuit and its affirmation of the denial indicates the patent owner is actively defending the patent through the PTAB and appellate processes. Unified Patents is listed as a source of litigation data for other cases, but the petitioner in this IPR was Excelliance Mos Corporation, not Unified Patents directly.

Recommended next steps

If facing assertion of US76296634 today, a defendant should note that no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB. The denial of IPR2025-01433 was discretionary, based on parallel district court litigation, rather than a determination on the merits of the patentability challenges. This means:

• Review the IPR2025-01433 Institution Decision: Obtain and thoroughly review the "Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review" for IPR2025-01433, dated 2026-02-14, available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website. This will detail the specific arguments made by Excelliance Mos Corporation and the PTAB's reasoning for the Fintiv denial.
• Assess new IPR possibilities: Given that the claims were not adjudicated on the merits, a new IPR petition by a different entity (or the same entity with new, non-estoppel grounds) might be considered. This would require careful analysis of the prior art and whether new grounds exist that were not (or could not reasonably have been) raised in IPR2025-01433.
• Monitor for future activity: Stay vigilant for any new IPR or PGR filings against US7629634, as the legal status shows ongoing litigation in various district courts.