US 9461167

I'll search for authoritative records on this patent number.

Let me pull the actual claim set and check for any 2026 appellate activity.

US 9,461,167 B2 — Summary

Important sourcing note: I could retrieve the front-page bibliographic data and the specification body of US 9,461,167 from Google Patents, but the fetched text cut off inside the detailed description ("...a metal ma") before the printed claim set. My claim description below is therefore reconstructed from IPR petition exhibits that quote the claim language verbatim, and I flag it as such. I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity for this patent (see "Litigation & 2026 dockets" below).

Bibliographic data

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9461167/en

Assignment chain as listed literally on the Google Patents page:

• 2019-05-30 – security interest to The Peter Norton Living Trust Dated April 28, 1989 (assignor: Acorn Semi LLC)
• 2019-06-26 – assignment to Acorn Semi, LLC (assignor: Acorn Technologies, Inc.)
• 2024-12-26 – assignment to Oak IP, LLC (assignor: Acorn Semi, LLC); and releases by secured party to Acorn Semi, LLC and Acorn Technologies, Inc.

Continuity (from the "Related Applications" section of the patent itself): 15/048,893 is a continuation of 13/552,556 (filed 2012-07-18) → continuation of 13/022,522 (filed 2011-02-07, now US 8,431,469) → divisional of 12/197,996 (filed 2008-08-25, now US 7,884,003) → divisional of 11/181,217 (filed 2005-07-13, now US 7,462,860) → continuation of 10/217,758 (filed 2002-08-12, now US 7,084,423), related to 10/342,576 (now US 6,833,556).

Abstract

The abstract as printed on the Google Patents page is a single sentence: "An electrical device in which an interface layer is disposed in between and in contact with a conductor and a semiconductor." (Note that sibling members of this family, e.g. US 7,884,003, carry a longer abstract reciting the interface layer thickness effective to depin the Fermi level while permitting current flow and specific contact resistances of ≤10 Ω·μm² or ≤1 Ω·μm².)

Independent claim(s) — plain language

Based on the IPR2020-01241 petition against this patent (Samsung v. Acorn Semi), which states that "the term 'specific contact resistivity' appears in independent Claim 1, from which all other challenged claims depend," claim 1 appears to be the principal (and possibly the only) independent claim, with challenged claims 1–6 and 8–16 being dependent claims. Claim 1 covers a structure with three required pieces, in plain terms:

1. A semiconductor and a contact metal forming an electrical junction;
2. An interface layer between them that is tuned so the junction's specific contact resistivity (equivalently, specific contact resistance — the two are used interchangeably in the art and the Board adopted that construction) is less than 1 Ω·μm² — a very low-resistance contact, achieved by the layer being thick enough to depin the semiconductor's Fermi level (block metal-induced gap states) yet thin enough to pass current by tunneling;
3. The interface layer comprises a metal oxide, and
4. A stack of metals is deposited on the interface layer.

That is: rather than the plain nitride/monolayer passivation emphasized in the 2002 parent application, the granted '167 claim is directed to a metal-oxide interfacial layer under a metal stack, delivering sub-1 Ω·μm² contact resistivity.

Priority caveat worth flagging: Samsung argued in its petition that the challenged claims are not entitled to any priority date before the '167 patent's own 2016 filing date, because no parent application provided written-description support for (a) the "less than 1 Ω·μm²" limitation, (b) "the interface layer comprising a metal oxide," and (c) "a stack of metals deposited on the interface layer." If accepted, that would move the effective date to 2016-02-19 (patentee's alternative fallback was 2011-02-07). I have not verified a final Board/ court ruling on that priority question for the '167 patent specifically, so I state this as an unresolved contention rather than a finding. It matters because the listed 2022-08-12 anticipated expiration is inconsistent with a 2016-only priority date — I cannot reconcile these with authoritative sources and flag the discrepancy.

Litigation / PTAB (as listed on the Google Patents page and in PTAB records)

• IPR2020-01241 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Acorn Semi, LLC) — respondent patent number 9461167, respondent application 15/048,893. Status listed as Institution Denied (decision date 2021-01-13), i.e. "Not Instituted – Merits." https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2020-01241
• IPR2020-01205 — the Google Patents page lists this as a filed PTAB case with a Final Written Decision, in the same litigation block. I could not independently confirm that IPR2020-01205 is directed to the '167 patent (it may relate to a sibling patent in the same Acorn family, which was subject to multiple parallel IPRs including IPR2020-01206, -01207, -01241, -01279, -01282). Treat the association with '167 as uncertain.
• Texas E.D. District Court case 2:19-cv-00347 — Acorn Semi LLC v. [Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al. The '167 patent was one of the four patents asserted at trial (with US 8,766,336; 9,905,691; 10,090,395); the jury found infringement. https://www.semiconductor-digest.com/acorn-technologies-prevails-at-trial-in-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-samsung/
• Federal Circuit: the Google Patents page lists a US case in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case 22-1499. Separately, PTAB exhibits reference the appeal captioned Samsung Electronics Co. v. Acorn Semi, LLC, No. 2022-1539 (Fed. Cir.), with Samsung's opening brief dated 2022-06-24. I am reporting both numbers literally as found and not reconciling them.
• Post-2024 owner activity: Oak IP (tied to Dominion Harbor) acquired a semiconductor portfolio from Acorn Semi in December 2024 and sued GlobalFoundries on 2025-02-04 asserting at least US 9,905,691 and US 10,937,880 (related family members claiming the 2002 priority date; GlobalFoundries IPRs filed 2025 challenge those). Reports note the '167 patent was among six patents previously asserted against Samsung.

On your specific "CAFC 2026 dockets" request

Searching for 2026 Federal Circuit activity tied to patent 9461167, I found no 2026 docket entries. The most recent verifiable Federal Circuit appeal in this dispute is the 2022 appeal (numbers as reported above), and the most recent activity I could confirm is the 2025 GlobalFoundries litigation/IPR activity involving related Acorn/Oak patents rather than the '167 patent itself. I do not have high-confidence information of any 2026 appellate proceeding on US 9,461,167, and I am not asserting that none exists — only that I could not substantiate one.

Uncertainties to keep in mind

• Full printed claim set of US 9,461,167 (including exact count of independent claims and precise claim-1 preamble language) — reconstructed from IPR exhibits, not a primary claim listing.
• Whether IPR2020-01205 concerns the '167 patent.
• Reconciliation of the 22-1499 vs. 2022-1539 Federal Circuit case numbers.
• Legal status discrepancy on the Google Patents page ("Expired – Fee Related" vs. "Expired – Lifetime") and the interplay between the listed 2022-08-12 expiration and the contested 2016 priority date.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9461167 using the sources you specified. Let me run several searches.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,461,167 ("the '167 patent")

Patent identification (as confirmed): U.S. Pat. No. 9,461,167 B2 — "Method for depinning the Fermi level of a semiconductor at an electrical junction and devices incorporating such junctions"; inventors Daniel E. Grupp and Daniel J. Connelly; application No. 15/048,893; filed Feb. 19, 2016; granted Oct. 4, 2016; priority date Aug. 12, 2002. Original assignee Acorn Technologies Inc.; ownership subsequently passed to Acorn Semi, LLC and then to Oak IP, LLC.

Based on the search results, the known litigation/contested proceedings involving the '167 patent specifically are as follows.

1. District Court litigation — Acorn Semi, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

'167 patent at issue: The '167 patent was one of six patents asserted (U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,084,423; 8,766,336; 9,209,261; 9,461,167; 9,905,691; 10,090,395). Acorn's March 9, 2020 infringement contentions asserted claims 1–6 and 8–16 of the '167 patent, and Samsung's May 2020 preliminary invalidity contentions addressed the same claims.

Outcome/status: A jury trial was held. On May 19, 2021, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Acorn, finding Samsung infringed all asserted claims of four patents — including the '167 patent — and awarding Acorn $25 million. Acorn publicly announced the verdict on June 3, 2021. The case was subsequently resolved by a $25 million settlement (reported in later patent-transaction analyses). A post-trial Acorn motion for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was denied (court found neither party blameless).

Sources: Acorn Technologies press release; Semiconductor Digest; Docket Alarm — Pretrial Order / Invalidity Contentions; CourtListener order; GreyB patent-transaction analysis.

2. PTAB — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Acorn Semi, LLC, IPR2020-01205

Outcome: A Final Written Decision issued Jan. 12, 2022. Available summary data lists the challenged claims but shows no claims recorded as invalidated, which would indicate the challenged claims survived. (I could not independently verify the exact claim-by-claim outcome from the search results, so treat the "no claims invalidated" point as likely but not certain.)

Sources: GreyB IPVerse IPR2020-01205; Patexia summary; Docket Alarm PTAB docket.

3. PTAB — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Acorn Semi, LLC, IPR2020-01241

Outcome: The Board denied institution of this second petition against the '167 patent on January 13, 2021.

Source: GreyB IPVerse IPR2020-01241.

Note on attribution: The Google Patents "litigation" links identify the petitioner line for both IPRs only through the "Unified Patents PTAB Data" license attribution — that is the data source, not the petitioner. Multiple independent databases (Patexia, GreyB/IPVerse, Docket Alarm filings captioned "Samsung v. Acorn") identify Samsung as the real petitioner in both IPR2020-01205 and IPR2020-01241.

4. Federal Circuit appeal — No. 22-1499

This appeal is listed among the litigation associated with the '167 patent family. The available search results did not identify the appellant, appellee, or the specific judgment/decision on appeal with confidence. Given the timing (2022), it is most plausibly an appeal arising from either the E.D. Tex. litigation or the IPR2020-01205 Final Written Decision, but I cannot state this with high confidence and am flagging it as unverified.

Source: Google Patents US9461167B2 litigation links.

5. Post-acquisition enforcement — Oak IP, LLC v. GlobalFoundries (possible)

In December 2024, Oak IP, LLC (associated with Dominion Harbor) acquired a portfolio of 36 semiconductor patents from Acorn Semi. On February 4, 2025, Oak IP sued GlobalFoundries. Public reporting states that six Acorn patents previously asserted against Samsung — expressly including US 9,461,167 B2 — form part of the acquired portfolio, and that the GlobalFoundries action followed the same depinning/contact-resistance technology theory.

Caveat: The search results confirm the '167 patent is in the acquired portfolio and that Oak IP sued GlobalFoundries shortly after acquisition, but they do not conclusively establish that the '167 patent was one of the specific patents asserted in the GlobalFoundries complaint. I could not verify the asserted patent list, case number, or jurisdiction for that action from the results obtained. Treat the GlobalFoundries/'167 link as possible but unconfirmed.

Source: GreyB — December 2024 patent transactions analysis.

Summary table

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: items 1, 2, and 3 (multiple corroborating sources: court filings, PTAB dockets, press releases, Patexia, GreyB/IPVerse).
• Low/uncertain confidence: item 4 (CAFC 22-1499 — party roles and subject not verified) and item 5 (whether the '167 patent specifically was asserted against GlobalFoundries).
• I did not find any additional litigation asserting the '167 patent beyond the above. Notably, the patent's own docket entries list exactly these proceedings; if additional suits exist post-2025 (e.g., by Oak IP), they were not surfaced in these results. This is a limitation of the sources searched, not a confirmation that no other suits exist.

If you need the CAFC 22-1499 docket details and the GlobalFoundries complaint's asserted-patent list nailed down, those require pulling the actual PACER/CAFC docket and the complaint, which I could not retrieve within this search session.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings for US 9,461,167. Note an immediate tension: the structured ODP block says "no AIA trial proceedings," but the patent's own Google Patents "Family has litigation" section lists two PTAB cases. Let me verify.

Important discrepancy found: the PTAB petitioner was Samsung, not Unified Patents — "Unified Patents" in the Google Patents block is the data-source attribution, not the party. Let me pin down the outcomes and any appeal.

Strong progress. Now let me confirm: (a) whether the '167 FWD was appealed, (b) the IPR2020-01241 denial basis, and (c) the claim set (whether claim 7 exists).

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — US 9,461,167 B2

"Method for depinning the Fermi level of a semiconductor at an electrical junction…" (Oak IP LLC / Acorn Semi, LLC; inventors Grupp & Connelly; expired 2022-08-12)

⚠️ Source conflict — read first

The structured block in my instructions says: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent." That is wrong. Two IPRs are on file, both visible in the patent's own Google Patents litigation section and confirmed in the Board's public papers I retrieved. The ODP ingest appears stale/incomplete. Per your instruction, I'm flagging the ones I found rather than defaulting to "no activity."

Second correction: the Google Patents "Family has litigation" block lists the petitioner for both cases as "Unified Patents PTAB Data." That is a data-source attribution (the Unified Patents CC-BY licensed dataset), not the real party. The actual petitioner is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (with the Samsung affiliates). Do not characterize this as a defensive-aggregator challenge — it was a commercial competitor with parallel district-court skin in the game.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings on file — one instituted and decided (IPR2020-01205: claims invalidated), one denied institution (IPR2020-01241). Bottom line for a defendant: there are no live claims to assert. The Board held claims 1–3, 6, 8, 10–12, and 14–16 unpatentable, and Acorn statutorily disclaimed claims 4, 5, 9, and 13 before institution. A demand letter citing U.S. 9,461,167 today is citing a patent whose entire claim set has been canceled or surrendered — the patent is "hardened" in the opposite direction: it is dead.

IPR2020-01205 — [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Acorn Semi, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-06-29 (Notice of Accorded Filing Date 2020-07-16)
• Status: Final Written Decision (terminated 2022-01-12) — claims held unpatentable
• Judge panel: Brian J. McNamara, John R. Kenny, Aaron W. Moore (APJs). Kenny authored the Final Written Decision.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–6 and 8–16 challenged. Two layers of challenge:
  1. § 112 benefit-disentitlement — Samsung argued the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of Acorn's earliest priority filing date for lack of written description (two claim groupings: claims 1–3 and 12 reciting "interface layer comprising a metal oxide"; claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 14–16 reciting "an oxide of titanium").
  2. § 102 anticipation by Acorn's own "Grupp '483" reference — but only once the priority challenge succeeded, because Grupp '483 becomes prior art only if the '167 claims lose the earlier date. The FWD's grounds table ultimately reads: Claims 1–3, 6, 8, 10–12, 14–16 | 35 U.S.C. § 102 | Grupp '483.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2021-01-13. Acorn had pressed discretionary denial under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019 (based on the co-pending E.D. Tex. case, Acorn Semi, LLC v. Samsung, No. 2:19-cv-00347-JRG, trial set for 2021-04-05), including a formal preliminary surreply. The Board nonetheless instituted on the Grupp '483 § 102 ground. (I could not retrieve the institution decision's full text within this session — treat the "reasoning" here as the framing the parties' briefing makes clear, not a verbatim quote.)
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2022-01-12 (Paper 51). The panel held claims 1–3, 6, 8–12, and 14–16 unpatentable.
  • Correction on rehearing: Acorn emailed on 2022-02-22 asking the panel to strike claim 9 from the Decision because claim 9 had already been statutorily disclaimed (Ex. 2054) before institution. The Board treated the email as an untimely rehearing request, excused the untimeliness, and granted it, amending the grounds and summary tables to remove claim 9. Quoting the order: "we remove the analysis of claim 9 from the Decision as set forth in the order below."
  • Net effective disposition at claim level: claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 held unpatentable. No claim was sustained.
• Settlement / termination: The IPR ran to a Final Written Decision — no IPR settlement. (The parallel district-court litigation later settled; see appeal note below.)
• Appeal: I found no Federal Circuit appeal of the IPR2020-01205 FWD in the sources reviewed. The only Federal Circuit matter tied to the '167 family is 22-1499, which is an appeal from the district court, not from the Board (see below). Flagging this as "not identified" rather than "none exists."
• Defensive value: Devastating to any assertion. Every claim that survived to the FWD was canceled. A plaintiff asserting claims 1–3, 6, 8, 10–12, or 14–16 is asserting claims the Board has already held unpatentable — that is Rule 11 exposure. Acorn's own documents cite it as a "Judgment" (Paper 51, FWD, 52 pp.).

Authority links:

• Board record (Docket Alarm): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01205/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._9461167/
• PTAB E2E / PTACTS petition file: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1538584](/patent/1538584)
• Order Granting Request for Rehearing (removing claim 9): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1538584/download-documents?artifactId=dQRkokJ6afIDwo1SBZtnAB6NvZZ2HnK9YBZDhe3NmKAxGTl9_ap7aSo

IPR2020-01241 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Acorn Semi, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-07-06
• Status: Institution Denied (decision 2021-01-13) — Google Patents tags it "Not Instituted – Merits"
• Judge panel: Not captured in the sources retrieved.
• Petition grounds: Second Samsung petition against the same '167 patent (filed one week after IPR2020-01205). Acorn's preliminary surreply in this docket argues the Fintiv factors, so the petition was met with a discretionary-denial fight on the same parallel-litigation theory.
• Institution decision: Denied 2021-01-13. The denial is a discretionary denial tied to the co-pending E.D. Tex. action (the Board denied it on the same day it instituted IPR2020-01205). Both parties briefed Fintiv extensively (including a "Patent Owner's Preliminary Surreply" and a Petitioner's Reply to POPR). The Google Patents status tag is "Not Instituted – Merits," but the substantive argument in the record is discretionary/parallel-litigation. I could not confirm the decision's precise stated basis — flagging rather than asserting.
• Final Written Decision: None (never instituted).
• Settlement / termination: N/A — denied at the threshold.
• Appeal: None identified.
• Defensive value: Limited as an invalidity vehicle — Samsung got no ruling. Its real significance is Fintiv history: the Board denied one of two parallel Samsung petitions on discretionary grounds while instituting the other.

Authority links:

• Board record (Docket Alarm): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01241/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._9461167/
• PTAB E2E / PTACTS petition file: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1538902](/patent/1538902)
• Petitioner's Reply to POPR (Fintiv briefing): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1538902/download-documents?artifactId=5l7q3tiEsLsg0G9TjkmrwPjicGPSPSDXAxnGQ-I5jpDkt4YHKyaX7AE

Related Federal Circuit activity (not a PTAB appeal)

CAFC 22-1499 — Acorn Semi, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

• Origin: E.D. Tex. district court (No. 2:19-cv-00347-JRG), not the PTAB. The appeal was filed 2022-02-25.
• Disposition: Dismissed 2023-01-06 on the parties' joint motion under Fed. Cir. R. 42(b), with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees (nonprecedential order; mandate issued).
• Why it matters: The E.D. Tex. jury found Samsung infringed claims across the Acorn family and awarded $25 million, but the case resolved by settlement and the appeal was walked away from. Separately, Samsung did appeal certain companion IPR FWDs (e.g., No. 2022-1539, addressing the '691 patent), but that is a different patent.
• Links: CourtListener order — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9357041](/patent/9357041)/acorn-semi-llc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/ ; CAFC docket — https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/01-06-2023-22-1499-acorn-semi-llc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd-order-22-1499-order-1-6-2023_2059244/

Strategic summary

Claim status across the whole patent (the critical picture). No claim of US 9,461,167 survives:

• Held unpatentable by the Board (FWD, IPR2020-01205): 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16.
• Statutorily disclaimed by Acorn before institution: 4, 5, 13 (Ex. 2003) and 9 (Ex. 2054).
• Untested / unaccounted for: claim 7 — it appears in neither the disclaimed set nor the challenged/instituted set. I could not confirm from the reviewed sources whether claim 7 exists in the printed patent or was previously canceled. Flag this as unverified rather than assuming it is live. If it exists, it was never adjudicated, but it is also not a claim any rational assertion would lean on when its sibling independent claim is dead.
• The patent's term also expired 2022-08-12 (20 years from the 2002-08-12 priority). Any theory would be past damages only — and moot, since the claims are gone.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Samsung and its privies are estopped in civil actions from asserting any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2020-01205. That said, estoppel runs to Samsung, not to you. For a new defendant, the prior art remains fully available — and the record is a gift: the Board already credited the § 112 benefit-disentitlement theory (the '167 claims lose the 2002 priority date for lack of written description) and the § 102 Grupp '483 attack. That same analytic scaffolding (Acorn's own earlier application as prior art) can be re-run by anyone not in privity with Samsung. Independent art from the broader Acorn campaign — Goodnick (1981), Taubenblatt (1982), Kim, Jammy, Chang, Iwaguro — was the subject of Samsung's parallel petitions against sibling patents and is publicly documented.

Pattern signals. The petitioner filed ten IPR petitions against six asserted Acorn patents, including two against this patent. That is a full-scale validity campaign, not a one-off. Acorn/Oak did not pursue a Federal Circuit appeal of the '167 FWD (as best I could determine) and voluntarily dismissed its district-court appeal with prejudice — consistent with a global settlement. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) filed against this patent — the "Unified Patents" text in the Google Patents block is a dataset credit only. Patent owner counsel was Laurence & Phillips IP Law (Matthew C. Phillips); petitioner counsel was Desmarais LLP (Cosmin Maier, Christian Dorman, Yung-Hoon "Sam" Ha).

Recommended next steps

1. If you received a demand citing claims 1–3, 6, 8, 10–12, 14–16: respond by attaching the FWD — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLC, IPR2020-01205, Paper 51 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2022) — and the Board's order removing claim 9. Those claims have been canceled. Board record: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01205/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._9461167/
2. If the demand cites claims 4, 5, 9, or 13: those were statutorily disclaimed by the patent owner before institution. A disclaimed claim is treated as never having existed for enforcement purposes — worth a one-paragraph letter, not a litigation budget.
3. If the demand cites claim 7: it is the only arguably untested claim. Verify the actual printed claim text in the granted patent and check the complete prosecution history for a prior disclaimer before responding. I could not resolve its status from the sources available here — do not assume.
4. Check the current assignee before doing anything else. Ownership is now Oak IP, LLC (assignment recorded 2024-12-26 from Acorn Semi, LLC, which itself recorded a release from The Peter Norton Living Trust). A demand from "Acorn" or an entity without a recorded chain of title is a separate standing problem. See USPTO Assignment records via PatentCenter: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
5. No live PTAB milestones to track. Both proceedings are closed (one FWD, one denial), the patent expired 2022-08-12, and no appeal of the '167 FWD is on file in the sources reviewed. There is nothing to wait out.

Caveats on what I could not verify: (a) the full text of the IPR2020-01205 institution decision and the IPR2020-01241 denial decision (panel composition and precise stated basis for the -01241 denial); (b) the existence/status of claim 7; (c) whether any CAFC appeal of the '167 FWD was filed and later dismissed without appearing in the sources I retrieved. Everything else above is quoted or grounded in the cited records.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9461167 before writing anything, since reel/frame numbers and correspondent names must come from actual records, not inference.

Let me try to pull the actual reel/frame records rather than relying on Google Patents' summary-level legal events.

I have the Google Patents legal-events summary but not reel/frame data. Let me dig for the recorded-assignment details and the entity backgrounds.

I have a reported reel for the 2024 Oak IP transfer. Let me try to pin down the earlier links and the correspondent of record.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 9,461,167. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me pull the "Cited By" / "References Cited" data and the IPR prior-art references directly.

Let me pull the patent's own cited-reference list and the key prior art used against it.

Sourcing note (read first)

Two limits materially affect this answer, and I will not paper over them:

1. The Google Patents fetch of US 9,461,167 (app. 15/048,893) that I obtained cuts off inside the detailed description ("…a metal ma") and does not include the printed claims or the front-page "(56) References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Patent Documents / Other Publications" tables. I therefore could not read the '167 patent's own examiner-cited reference list in this session.
2. My tool budget for this task was exhausted after the searches above. I did not obtain a USPTO PTO-892, an EP/ISR search report, or a Google Patents "Patent Citations" list for the '167 patent itself.

What follows is therefore built from (a) references the '167 specification itself cites or incorporates, and (b) references documented in the PTAB/litigation record as having been asserted against the '167 patent and its Acorn siblings. Where I cannot verify a number or date, I say so. Per your strict rule, I am not auto-correcting or inventing any identifier.

Part 1 — Background art cited inside the '167 specification

These are the references the patent itself relies on to describe Fermi-level pinning. They are § 102(b)-type printed publications, but none of them discloses the claimed combination (metal-oxide interface layer + metal stack + sub-1 Ω·μm² specific contact resistivity), so none is a realistic § 102 anticipation of the '167 claims.

Part 2 — The '167 patent's own "References Cited" (front page) — NOT RETRIEVED

I could not obtain the examiner's PTO-892 citations for the '167 patent. I will not guess at these. If you need them, they must be pulled from the USPTO PatentCenter/Image File Wrapper for application 15/048,893, or from the Google Patents "Patent Citations / Cited By" section, or the patent PDF front page.

One incidental data point I did observe (and it is not the '167's own citation list): a PTO-892 from a different Acorn application, 15/929,593 (Grupp et al., Examiner Monica D. Harrison, Art Unit 2815), lists US 9,461,167 B2 alongside US 5,882,960 A (Zhang) — i.e., the '167 patent appears as a reference cited against a sibling application, and Zhang '960 was used in a double-patenting rejection against that sibling. (Source: Acorn Ex. 2062/2063, 15/929,592 & 15/929,593 prosecution-history excerpts, IPR2020-01207.) Do not read this as the '167's own cited art.

Part 3 — Prior art actually asserted against the '167 patent

The '167 patent was challenged in IPR2020-01205 (Samsung Electronics v. Acorn Semi), instituted Jan. 13, 2021 on claims 1–6 and 8–16, FWD Jan. 12, 2022 (Panel: Kenny, McNamara, Moore). A second petition, IPR2020-01241, was denied institution on the merits Jan. 13, 2021. Patexia's summary of IPR2020-01205 lists the challenged claims (1–6, 8–16) and a blank "Claims Invalidated" field, consistent with the challenged claims surviving (treat as likely, not certain).

The one prior-art reference I can document as actually relied on in the '167 petition is:

Why this matters for § 102 scope: whether Grupp-family art is even available as prior art turns entirely on the written-description/priority fight (already flagged as unresolved in the earlier Patent summary). If the '167 claims keep the Aug. 12, 2002 priority date, same-family Grupp documents are not § 102 art; if they drop to the Feb. 19, 2016 filing date, they become § 102(b)/(a)(1) art. I flag this as the pivot for any § 102 mapping here.

Part 4 — Prior art asserted against sibling Acorn patents (context, not confirmed against '167)

Because the '167 shares its specification and its "metal oxide interface layer" genus with the sibling patents US 9,905,691 ('691) and US 10,090,395 ('395), the following references were heavily litigated in the parallel IPRs (IPR2020-01206, -01207, -01279, -01282, all on appeal as Samsung v. Acorn, Fed. Cir. No. 2022-1539). They are the most likely additional § 102 candidates for '167 claim 1's "metal oxide" element — but I did not confirm they were asserted in IPR2020-01205 itself, and label them accordingly.

Part 5 — Family documents incorporated by reference in the '167

The '167 "Related Applications" section incorporates these by reference (they are the 2002-priority chain and are § 102 art only if the '167 claims lose the 2002 priority date):

I am deliberately not supplying issue dates I could not verify.

Bottom line on § 102

• No reference I can verify presently anticipates all elements of '167 claim 1 with high confidence, because claim 1 (per the IPR2020-01241 petition) requires all of: (i) a semiconductor/contact-metal electrical junction, (ii) an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, (iii) a stack of metals on the interface layer, and (iv) specific contact resistivity < 1 Ω·μm².
• The strongest documented § 102 attack on '167 is the "Grupp '483" anticipation ground asserted in IPR2020-01205, which is contingent on the '167 metal-oxide claims not getting the Aug. 12, 2002 priority date.
• "Goodnick" is the strongest documented § 102 reference for the "metal oxide" element — it was held to anticipate metal-oxide claims in the sibling '395 patent (IPR2020-01282) — but the "stack of metals" and "sub-1 Ω·μm²" elements would still need separate support.
• Recommended next step to complete your request authoritatively: pull (a) the PTO-892 / IFW for application 15/048,893, and (b) the IPR2020-01205 Petition (Paper 2) and Final Written Decision (Jan. 12, 2022) — those three documents contain the exact cited-reference list and the exact § 102 grounds I could not retrieve here.

Uncertainties I am flagging rather than resolving: the identity/number of "Grupp '483"; the exact bibliographic cites for "Goodnick," "Taubenblatt," "Jammy," "Chang," and "Kim"; whether those four were asserted in IPR2020-01205 (vs. only in the sibling IPRs); the '167's own examiner-cited references; and the still-unresolved 2002-vs-2016 priority question, which controls whether the Grupp-family and Goodnick/Shine art is even § 102 art.

I need to flag a sourcing problem before analyzing, then verify what I can.

Note on the task premise: The instruction says to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No Prior Art section was actually included in my context — the only prior sections are the Patent summary, Litigation summary, and Assignment history. I will not fabricate a prior-art list. Let me search for the actual record.

Good — I now have the actual prior-art record. Let me verify the specific grounds and the secondary references before writing.

Sourcing note (read first)

The task instructs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No Prior Art section was supplied in my context — the only prior sections are the Patent summary, Litigation summary, and Assignment history. Rather than invent a reference list, I pulled the actual PTAB and district-court prior-art record for this patent family. Everything below is grounded in that record, and I flag where I am reasoning rather than citing.

Contradiction to flag with the earlier sections: The earlier Litigation summary stated that the IPR2020-01205 Final Written Decision showed "no claims recorded as invalidated, which would indicate the challenged claims survived." The Patexia docket for IPR2020-01205 shows the opposite — Claims Invalidated: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 (Patexia IPR2020-01205), and Law360 headlined the result "Samsung Strikes Down Some Patents Tied To $25M Trial Loss." The earlier summary appears to be wrong; the challenged claims were largely cancelled.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. 9,461,167 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Threshold issue: what date the claims get, and therefore what is prior art

A § 103 analysis of the '167 patent is dominated by one antecedent question that the earlier sections already flagged: priority. The patent was filed 2016-02-19 but claims benefit back to 2002-08-12.

The PTAB and the Federal Circuit record establishes that at least some claims lose the 2002 date. In the parallel IPRs on sibling patents, the Board found the ancestor applications do not enable the full claimed range of "a specific contact resistivity … less than 1 Ω·μm²," and do not provide written description for a generic "metal oxide" interface layer (only the single species TiO₂ was disclosed). See IPR2020-01205 Petitioner's Reply, § I–II (metal oxide written description; SCR enablement) and the Board's institution decision quoted at bannerwitcoff.com IPR2020-01206-22 (every claim of the sibling '691 patent recites a metal oxide interface layer; the first arguable disclosure was in the 2016-filed applications). Samsung's statement of related cases confirms the Board "correctly determined that certain challenged claims … are not enabled by any parent applications" (ptacts.uspto.gov, Appeal No. 2022-1539 statement).

Consequence for § 103: once the "metal oxide" and "<1 Ω·μm²" limitations are dated to 2016, the entire body of 1980s–2000s metal-oxide-interface-layer art becomes available, including art that is earlier Acorn work by the same inventors. (The "stack of metals" claims were disclaimed by Acorn — see Patent Owner Response, footnote 1, noting claims 4, 5, 13 disclaimed — so nearly all of the surviving claim set was in play.)

This is the unusual posture: the patent owner's own earlier patent/specification, Grupp '483, becomes the primary reference. That is not a § 103 curiosity so much as a § 102 one, but it frames the obviousness case.

2. Claim scope as reconstructed (with caveat)

Full printed claim text still not retrieved; the structure below is reconstructed from PTAB exhibits (Ex. 1141, the '167 file history excerpts in Exc. 2062, and the Office action on later application 15/929,592). Treat the limitation set as reliable and the claim-number mapping as approximate:

• Contact metal on a source/drain of a transistor whose semiconductor is an n-type silicon-based semiconductor (dependent claims recite n-type silicon, titanium contact metal);
• An interface layer between metal and semiconductor comprising (i) a metal oxide spacer/separation layer and (ii) a semiconductor oxide passivation layer (dependent claims narrow to oxide of titanium and oxide of silicon);
• The passivation layer ~0.1 nm to 5 nm, often < 1 nm (< 5 nm claimed);
• A specific contact resistivity stated in the < 10 Ω·μm² / < 1 Ω·μm² family;
• "The contact metal is a metal or a stack of metals deposited on the interface layer."

3. The primary reference and the actual grounds used

Grupp '483 — U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 (Grupp et al., granted Feb. 13, 2007). Same inventors, same specification as the '167's 2002 parent. It discloses a metal oxide (TiO₂) spacer layer, a semiconductor-oxide passivation layer 0.1–5 nm thick, metals (including titanium) deposited on the interface layer, and even a stack of metals. The '167 prosecution itself recorded that "Grupp et al 167' discloses … the metal oxide spacer layer … comprises an oxide of titanium, and the contact metal comprises titanium" (Office action on 15/929,592, PTO-892 citing US-9461167-B2, Grupp). Samsung's sole ground in IPR2020-01205 was Grupp '483 as anticipatory prior art (37 C.F.R. record; petitioner's Request for Oral Argument lists, for -01204, "whether claims … are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Grupp '483").

Because Grupp '483 is the same disclosure as the parent, anticipation and obviousness collapse into one another — if the priority chain is broken there is essentially no gap for a POSITA to bridge. The genuinely interesting § 103 question is the one the Board and Samsung also litigated in parallel: does independent 1980s/1990s art render the metal-oxide-interface junction obvious even without Grupp '483?

4. § 103 combinations that render the claims obvious

These mirror the grounds Samsung actually asserted against the family (and that later appeared in its district-court invalidity contentions, e.g. Exhibit 2024, "Inval_Cont_Appx_D1 — '167 — Goodnick" in IPR2020-01241, directly applying Goodnick to this patent).

Combination A — Goodnick + Taubenblatt 1982 (the strongest § 103 ground)

• Goodnick et al., "Effects of a thin SiO₂ layer on the formation of metal-silicon contacts," 18 J. Vac. Sci. & Tech. 949 (1981) — teaches a metal (Al) on a thin ~30 Å SiO₂ layer on Si, with an interfacial Al₂O₃ film forming by reduction of the SiO₂ (4Al + 3SiO₂ → 2Al₂O₃ + 3Si), self-limiting, and states that "an oxide layer that is sufficiently thin may sustain considerable current via tunneling."
• Taubenblatt & Helms, "Silicide and Schottky barrier formation in the Ti-Si and the Ti-SiOₓ-Si systems," 53 J. Appl. Phys. 6308 (1982) — teaches Ti deposited on thin SiO₂ (<20 Å), forming TiOₓ as a diffusion barrier with unreacted Ti remaining on top, i.e. a Ti–TiOₓ–SiO₂–Si stack; and it teaches that a thin interfacial oxide reduces Fermi-level pinning.
• The combination yields exactly the claimed structure: metal oxide (TiOₓ) + semiconductor oxide (SiO₂) interface layer, <5 nm, between a metal contact (Ti) and n-type Si.
• Motivation: both references concern the same problem (metal contacts to oxidized Si and the resulting barrier), and both expressly discuss how the oxide thickness controls whether the contact tunnels or reacts. A POSITA seeking a low-resistance contact would recognize that substituting Taubenblatt's titanium (which reduces SiO₂ to a lower-barrier TiOₓ) for Goodnick's aluminum improves the junction — precisely the argument on the record: "reducing the resistivity of the interface layer by substituting TiO₂ for Goodnick's higher-resistivity Al₂O₃ layer" (IPR2020-01279 Reply).
• Caveat from the record: the Board in IPR2020-01279 did not find the Goodnick + Taubenblatt motivation adequately established — it "found that Petitioner had not demonstrated a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings in Goodnick and Taubenblatt" (ptacts.uspto.gov). So this combination is assertable but was not sustained as to the sibling claims.

Combination B — Goodnick + Jammy

• Jammy — U.S. Patent No. 6,724,088 (filed Apr. 20, 1999; prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e)) — discloses a MOSFET in which a "quantum conductive barrier layer" (expressly alumina Al₂O₃ or silicon oxynitride) sits between a metal stud (W or Ti) and an n-type source/drain diffusion in silicon; the layer is "about 5–15 Å" most preferably — i.e., <1 nm (Appendix C10 claim chart).
• The combination supplies every limitation Goodnick alone lacks: the source/drain-of-a-transistor context, the <1 nm thickness (range overlap), and the express teaching that the barrier layer lowers contact resistance.
• Motivation: Jammy itself frames the barrier layer as reducing junction resistance and states its invention is "preferably incorporated into a MOSFET." Combining a known contact-resistance-reducing interlayer with Goodnick's interface physics is a predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device (KSR).
• This is the "Goodnick + Jammy" ground actually run against claim 4 of a sibling patent in IPR2020-01282.

Combination C — Goodnick + Taubenblatt 1982 + Jammy (+ Chang)

Adds Jammy (and Chang, a secondary reference) to Combination A. This is the Ground 4 / Ground 5 structure Samsung asserted in IPR2020-01279. Jammy supplies the transistor source/drain and thin-layer teachings; the record lists precisely these grounds: "claims 14, 17-19, and 22 … obvious over Goodnick, Jammy, and Taubenblatt 1982"; "claim 6 … over Goodnick, Jammy, Taubenblatt 1982, and Chang" (Request for Oral Argument, IPR2020-01204/01205/01206/01279). Motivation is cumulative: each reference supplies a distinct, known element (interface physics; a specific low-barrier metal/oxide chemistry; the transistor source/drain + thin interlayer) whose combination yields only predictable results.

Combination D — Goodnick + Taubenblatt 1982 + Kim (for the resistivity limitation)

• Kim (1989 patent, Ex. 1125) describes "an interface layer formed by titanium reducing silicon dioxide to achieve a specific contact resistance as low as 8 Ω·μm²" (ptacts.uspto.gov).
• This is the ground aimed at the resistivity range. A POSITA optimizing the Ti/TiOₓ/SiO₂ stack (Combination A) toward lower resistance has an express numeric target (8 Ω·μm²) and a known lever (thinner, lower-barrier interfacial oxide), making <1 Ω·μm² an obvious optimization target (In re Aller / range-overlap: "even a slight overlap in range establish[es] a prima facie case of obviousness," quoted in the record at exparte.com). Caveat: Kim gives 8 Ω·μm², not <1; the sub-1 argument rests on optimization reasoning rather than a direct disclosure.

Combination E — Jammy + Bronner (U.S. 5,792,703) for "a stack of metals"

• Jammy incorporates Bronner by reference and "explicitly suggests that Jammy's invention can be utilized to improve FETs disclosed in Bronner." A POSITA would place Jammy's quantum conductive barrier layer between the filled contact opening and the diffusion of Bronner's transistor (ptacts, Ex. 1128 Bronner; petition text).
• Motivation is textual — express incorporation-by-reference plus an express suggestion to combine — the strongest form of KSR motivation.
• This is the combination that supports the "metal or a stack of metals deposited on the interface layer" limitation (the limitation Acorn disclaimed in most claims, so its practical weight is limited).

Combination F — Goodnick + Stesmans et al. (2002) (for the semiconductor-oxide passivation layer)

• Stesmans et al., "Si Dangling-Bond-Type Defects at the Interface of (100)Si with Ultrathin Layers of SiOₓ, Al₂O₃, and ZrO₂," 80 Appl. Phys. Lett. 1957 (2002) — teaches a ~0.5 nm SiOₓ interlayer between Si and alumina (Al₂O₃), and "the necessity for interposing an ultrathin SiO₂ layer … to attain device-grade interfaces" (exparte.com record).
• The combination with Goodnick yields a metal-oxide-on-semiconductor-oxide interface layer with the semiconductor oxide at exactly the claimed sub-1 nm thickness, and supplies the passivation rationale (dangling-bond termination) that the '167 specification itself relies on.

5. Why a POSITA would combine (consolidated motivation)

Drawing on the record's own framing:

1. Same field, same problem. All references concern reducing the barrier/resistance of a metal–silicon contact by interposing an ultrathin oxide. Goodnick, Taubenblatt, Jammy, and Stesmans all address "metal on oxidized silicon."
2. Known technique, predictable result. Depositing a metal (Ti or Al) on a thin thermal/grown SiO₂ and annealing was "nothing more than well-known, conventional semiconductor processing steps" (petition language on the record). KSR permits combination of known elements with predictable results.
3. Express teaching/suggestion. Jammy expressly incorporates Bronner and suggests its use in a MOSFET; Taubenblatt expressly explains that a thin interfacial oxide reduces pinning; the two together supply both the structure and the rationale.
4. Design incentive / optimization. Kim's 8 Ω·μm² demonstrates a known direction of improvement (thinner, lower-barrier interfacial oxide), giving a POSITA a reason to optimize toward the claimed <1 Ω·μm².

6. Likely outcomes and the fact that one ground failed

An honest analysis must report the mixed record:

• IPR2020-01205 (Grupp '483): instituted; Final Written Decision 2022-01-12; claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 cancelled per Patexia. This is the ground that actually invalidated the '167 claims — but it is nominally § 102 anticipation, riding on the priority-break.
• IPR2020-01241: institution denied (2021-01-13). Its Exhibit 2024 is the Goodnick-applied-to-'167 invalidity chart, indicating a Goodnick § 103 theory that the Board declined to institute.
• The Board rejected the Goodnick + Taubenblatt motivation in the sibling IPR2020-01279, and it upheld certain "Comprises/oxide-of-titanium" claims on priority grounds (leading to Samsung's Federal Circuit appeal, No. 2022-1539 — the brief excerpts confirm the appeal targeted the "comprises" construction and the Board's failure to apply Grupp '483).

Bottom line: the claims that were invalidated fell to Grupp '483 (same-inventor prior art made available only by the priority break). The independent § 103 combinations — Goodnick-based — were assertable and plausible but were not sustained by the Board. So the defensible statement is:

The '167 claims are obvious as (a) anticipated by Grupp '483 once priority to 2002 is broken for the "metal oxide" and "<1 Ω·μm²" limitations, and (b) alternatively obvious over Goodnick in view of Taubenblatt 1982, and further in view of Jammy (and optionally Kim or Stesmans) — but ground (b) is weaker than the record's first-glance impression, because the PTAB declined institution on the '167-specific Goodnick petition and rejected the Goodnick + Taubenblatt motivation for sibling claims.

Explicit uncertainties / limits of this analysis

• Claim text is reconstructed from PTAB exhibits, not the printed patent. Exact claim-number-to-limitation mapping (e.g., whether "specific contact resistivity <1 Ω·μm²" sits in claim 1 of '167 or only in a sibling) is not verified here; I have flagged it rather than asserting it.
• The Grupp '483 § 102/§ 103 collapse depends entirely on the priority finding; if the '167 claims were ultimately held entitled to 2002 priority, Grupp '483 drops out and only the weaker Goodnick-family grounds remain.
• I did not independently retrieve the IPR2020-01205 Final Written Decision text, so the precise limitation-by-limitation reasoning (and the exact per-claim outcome) rests on docket-summary data (Patexia) plus the derivative appeals record.
• Reference substance for Chang and Kim is inferred from petition characterizations, not from the references themselves.
• As noted at the top, no "Prior Art section" was present in my inputs; the reference list above is the one I reconstructed from the live PTAB/litigation record, and it should be reconciled against whatever Prior Art section the user intended me to use.