PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 7,923,764. The petition for IPR2025-01079 was discretionarily denied, meaning no claims were invalidated or sustained as part of this proceeding. For a defendant, this indicates that the patent has not been successfully challenged through this IPR.

IPR2025-01079 — United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-02
• Status: Discretionary Denial — the petition was not instituted by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims of US7923764 under statutory basis § 103 (obviousness) using various prior art references. Specific claims and prior art are not available in the provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-11-26. The PTAB issued a discretionary denial based on the factors outlined in Fintiv (e.g., in view of parallel district court litigation).
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable as the petition was denied institution.
• Appeal: Not publicly available from the provided search results whether the denial was appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means the patent owner successfully fended off this IPR challenge without any claims being addressed on the merits. This particular IPR does not offer a defendant any direct claim invalidation leverage, and it indicates the patent owner is capable of leveraging procedural defenses at the PTAB.

Strategic summary

Currently, no claims of US7923764 have been canceled or found unpatentable through AIA trial proceedings. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01079, was discretionarily denied at the institution stage, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the challenged claims. As a result, all claims of US7923764 remain officially UNTESTED on their merits by the PTAB.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01079 was denied institution based on a discretionary denial (likely related to Fintiv factors as per the Unified Patents data), statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for the petitioner (United Microelectronics Corporation et al.) may or may not apply depending on the specific grounds and the court's interpretation. However, other parties not in privity with the petitioner are not estopped from raising the same or similar prior art grounds against the patent in future proceedings or litigation. The denial of institution does not typically create broad estoppel against other potential challengers.

A notable pattern signal is that the petitioner was "United Microelectronics Corporation et al.", suggesting a direct industry player challenged the patent. The discretionary denial on Fintiv grounds also highlights the patent owner's strategy to manage parallel litigation with PTAB proceedings. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC is listed as the current assignee, which is a common characteristic of entities engaged in patent assertion. Unified Patents also filed two IPRs (IPR2025-00829 and IPR2025-01079) against this patent, though the latter is listed with the inventor. The information provided in the initial prompt regarding IPR2025-01079 listing United Microelectronics Corporation et al. as the petitioner, and Google Patents showing Unified Patents filing IPR2025-01079 as well as IPR2025-00829, suggests Unified Patents may have been involved in orchestrating or funding the challenge by United Microelectronics Corporation, or there may be an overlap in the data sources.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US7923764, it is important to understand that while IPR2025-01079 was filed, it did not result in any claims being invalidated. The discretionary denial means the claims themselves have not been substantively reviewed and confirmed patentable. The primary impact of IPR2025-01079 is a procedural hurdle that the petitioner encountered due to parallel district court litigation.

Defendants should conduct a thorough prior art search to identify potential grounds for a new IPR petition if they are considering a PTAB challenge. The Fintiv factors (and any subsequent changes in PTAB discretionary denial policy) would need to be carefully considered when filing a new petition, especially if there is ongoing district court litigation.

The information from Unified Patents indicates the discretionary denial for IPR2025-01079 (and IPR2025-00829) was "Procedural". This means the denial was not based on the merits of the prior art argument but rather on case management considerations, such as a parallel district court case. Therefore, the door is still open for other parties to challenge the claims on their merits.

The full details of the denial for IPR2025-01079, including the specific Fintiv analysis, would be found in the PTAB's Institution Decision, which can be accessed through the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2025-01079.

The patent has an anticipated expiration date of 2026-07-24. This means the patent has a limited remaining lifespan, which will influence the strategy for any potential defendant.

Further investigation into the details of the district court cases (e.g., 2:24-cv-00623, 2:24-cv-00730 in Texas Eastern District Court) associated with this patent would be crucial to understand the context of the PTAB's discretionary denial and to assess litigation risk and strategy.

---

Citations:
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01079
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00829
https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7923764B2](/patent/US7923764B2)/en
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-00623
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-00730