US 9138862

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number and its litigation status.

Let me dig into the CAFC docket and the current ownership/appeal posture.

US 9,138,862 B2 — Summary

Caveat up front: I ran this as a live web review of public patent/litigation sources (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, the PTAB institution decision, Unified Patents, and CAFC dockets) rather than a direct USPTO PatentCenter API pull. The authoritative full text you supplied is the primary basis below; where I rely on the live sources I cite them. One limitation: the full‑text block you provided is truncated before the claim set, so my claim overview is reconstructed from the abstract and the specification's own summary of the claims, and should be verified against the printed claims for verbatim language.

Bibliographic data (matches the supplied front page)

Assignee / ownership. The patent front page lists the applicant as "Chien-Min Sung, Tansui (TW)" (original assignee recorded simply as "Individual"). Google Patents' assignment history shows: assigned to KINIK COMPANY (2014‑08‑19); then back to SUNG, CHIEN-MIN, DR (2021‑08‑19); a license to KINIK COMPANY (2021‑09‑13); and an assignment to CHIEN-MIN SUNG from Kinik (2023‑08‑21). Google Patents currently lists the current assignee as "Sung Chien Min Dr." The PTAB institution decision corroborates that in 2024 the patent owner identified himself, as an individual, as owner and real party‑in‑interest. So: filed as an individual/sole-inventor patent, briefly Kinik‑related, and now personally held by Chien‑Min Sung.

Abstract (verbatim)

"CMP pad dressers having leveled tips and associated methods are provided. In one aspect, for example, a method can include pressing a CMP pad dresser against a CMP pad, where the dresser includes a monolayer of a plurality of superabrasive particles protruding from a matrix layer. The difference in protrusion distance between the highest protruding tip and the second highest protruding tip of the monolayer of superabrasive particles is less than or equal to about 10 microns and the difference in protrusion distance between the highest 10 protruding tips of the monolayer of superabrasive particles are within about 20 microns or less. The method can further include rotating the dresser against the CMP pad such that asperities are cut into the CMP pad having a maximum cutting depth of about 60 microns."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

1. Method of conditioning/dressing a CMP pad (the claim mirrored in the abstract). Press a CMP pad dresser against a CMP pad, where the dresser has a monolayer of superabrasive particles (e.g., diamond) sticking out of a matrix/bond layer. Two tight tolerance limits must be met: (a) the height difference between the single highest protruding tip and the second‑highest tip is ≤ about 10 µm, and (b) the spread among the highest 10 tips is ≤ about 20 µm. Then rotate the dresser against the pad so that it cuts asperities into the pad having a maximum cutting depth of about 60 µm. The point of the tight tip‑height uniformity is that many tips share the workload instead of a few tall particles doing all the cutting.

2. Method of polishing a workpiece (the "associated methods" complement). Builds on the dressing method: rotate the CMP pad, apply a slurry (silica, alumina, ceria, etc., optionally with an oxidative compound) to the pad's polishing surface, and press a workpiece (in aspects, a semiconductor device with Cu, W and/or oxide layers) against it so the pad asperities plus slurry polish the workpiece. The specification ties this to advanced nodes — e.g., node size ≤ 28 nm, line width ≤ ~30 nm, wafers > 400 mm — and to material‑removal rates such as ~200 µm/hr for Cu and ~100 µm/hr for oxides at an 11.5 kg load. (I'm describing the substance from the specification; whether these particular limitations appear in an independent claim versus dependent claims needs verification against the printed claims.)

3. CMP pad dresser apparatus (leveled working surface). A dresser with a plurality of superabrasive particles forming a working surface, defined by protrusion‑difference limits measured from a common reference point. The specification states two apparatus formulations:

• Highest tip vs. second‑highest tip ≤ about 20 µm, and the highest 1% of tips (excluding the highest) fall within about 80 µm; and/or
• Highest vs. second‑highest ≤ about 10 µm, highest vs. 10th‑highest ≤ about 20 µm, highest vs. 100th‑highest ≤ about 40 µm, and the highest tip protrudes ≥ about 50 µm.

Optional features described: tips arranged in a predetermined/uniform pattern (grid, concentric annular rings, spiral, etc.), with the highest tips concentrated at a peripheral location (up to 90%, 50%, or 33% of the dresser radius), and attitudes oriented so an apex, edge, or sharp portion faces the pad.

4. Method of making a CMP pad dresser (warpage‑control method). Dispose a first monolayer of superabrasive particles on one side of a metal support layer and a second monolayer on the opposite side, with substantially the same distribution, then bond both monolayers to the support layer. The symmetric particle distribution on both faces balances the thermal‑shrinkage/bonding forces so the support layer does not warp — the stated reason traditional brazed dressers lose their tip leveling. Related independent subject matter also covers a method of minimizing warpage by substantially equalizing warping forces on opposite sides of the support layer during bonding, plus a dresser assembly in which the second monolayer is coupled to a rigid support (polymeric, metal, ceramic, glass, composite), optionally with magnetic elements for attachment.

Notable dependent‑claim subject matter

Levels of the same parameters (≤ 50/20/10 µm two‑tip differences; highest 1% within 80/60/40 µm); asperity cutting depth of 80/60/40 µm; at least 25/50/100 tips actually cutting asperities; "substantially all" asperities cut by particles in a peripheral location; dresser loads of 0.1–60 kg (aspects 2–20 kg, 6–12 kg); and workpieces/slurries as noted above.

Litigation and PTAB status (as of the sources retrieved)

• District court (Delaware): Sung v. Kinik Co., No. 1:20‑cv‑00247 (D. Del.) — dismissed by settlement (per the PTAB institution decision, which also notes a Taiwan IP Court settlement transcript dated Aug. 13, 2021 assigning rights back to Sung). This is the matter flagged in the "Family has litigation" data on the patent page.
• District court (E.D. Tex.): Sung v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al., No. 4:23‑cv‑00752 (E.D. Tex., filed Aug. 21, 2023), asserting US 8,974,270, 9,138,862 and 9,724,802; a related 4:23‑cv‑00753 is also listed.
• IPRs (Samsung entities, filed Feb. 29, 2024): IPR2024‑00533 (’270 patent), IPR2024‑00534 (this ’862 patent), and IPR2024‑00535 (’802 patent).
  • In IPR2024‑00534, institution was granted Sept. 18, 2024 (Board declined Fintiv discretionary denial), and the Final Written Decision issued Sept. 17, 2025, with reported outcome "Unpatentable" for the challenged claims 1–20. Case status: "Final Written Decision — Appealed."
• CAFC (2026 dockets):
  • 26‑1528, Sung v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. — appeal from PTAB IPR2024‑00534; reported filed March 17, 2026; judge assignment and outcome pending. (Note a timing discrepancy: a March 2026 docketing date is well past the usual 63‑day appeal window from a Sept. 17, 2025 FWD; I cannot reconcile that from the retrieved data and flag it as uncertain.)
  • 26‑1197, Sung v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. — appeal from IPR2024‑00533 (’270 patent); dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by the CAFC on March 9, 2026, each side bearing its own costs (nonprecedential order). A Korean report (Seoul Wire, Mar. 19, 2026) characterizes this as the parties settling the dispute after Samsung's IPR wins, with the settlement terms undisclosed.
• An earlier IPR2021‑00638 (Kinik‑related) exhibit list included the file history of this patent.

Uncertainty / verification notes

1. Exact claim language is not in the text you supplied (it is cut off before the claims), so claims 2–4 above are reconstructed from the specification and abstract; verify against the granted claims.
2. IPR outcome characterization ("Unpatentable") comes from an aggregated PTAB tracker, not the FWD document itself.
3. 26‑1528 filing date (Mar. 17, 2026) is anomalous relative to the FWD date; treat as needing confirmation on PACER/CAFC.
4. Current assignee is reported as Chien‑Min Sung, following multiple Kinik reassignments; confirm via USPTO Assignment records if this matters.
5. Adjusted expiration 2032‑09‑07 is as listed by Google Patents; the earlier‑than‑20‑year date suggests a terminal disclaimer, which I could not verify.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9138862/en ; http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c2/01/38/41e2990fd9e3f1/US9138862.pdf ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9138862.html ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00534 ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/cafc/26-1528/sung-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd ; https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1197.ORDER.3-9-2026_2658180.pdf ; https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/271585 ; https://www.seoulwire.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=[712111](/patent/712111)

I'll research litigation involving US 9,138,862. Let me run several targeted searches.

Good results. Let me search for the other listed cases and outcomes.

I've gathered substantial information. Note: I was cut off mid-research on a couple of follow-ups (the TI case outcome and the CAFC 26-1528 docket), so I'll flag where confirmation is incomplete rather than guess.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,138,862

Important framing caveat: U.S. 9,138,862 (the '862 patent, "CMP Pad Dresser Having Leveled Tips and Associated Methods," issued Sept. 22, 2015) is a member of a patent family that has been litigated extensively. Several of the entries below involve the family (i.e., the '862 patent is a parent of, or is co-listed with, patents actually asserted), so I distinguish between (a) cases where the '862 patent itself was asserted/challenged and (b) family-related proceedings where it appears as a parent patent or a family member rather than the instrument asserted. This distinction matters legally.

A. Cases where the '862 patent itself was asserted or challenged

1. Sung v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.

• Court / Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
• Case No.: 4:23-cv-00752-SDJ
• Filed: August 21, 2023
• Plaintiff: Chien-Min Sung (Dr. Chien-Min Sung, individually — the patent owner)
• Defendants: [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC
• Patents asserted: U.S. 9,138,862 ('862); U.S. 9,724,802 ('802); U.S. 8,974,270 ('270)
• '862-specific allegations: Count I asserted at least claim 1 of the '862 patent (a method claim for conditioning a CMP pad). The infringement theory was that Samsung performs the claimed method by using third-party CMP pad conditioners (e.g., 3M's Trizact/Diamond, Saesol Standard/Hive, Shinhan Diamond, Abrasive Technology "Infinity II," EHWA CVD CMP) in its fabs, pleading infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and (g). (See Ex. 4–8 claim charts; ¶¶ 33–43 of the Complaint.)
• Status/Outcome: Samsung's IPRs invalidated the family patents (see below). Per a Korean industry report (Seoul Wire, March 19, 2026), the Federal Circuit approved a settlement and formally terminated the dispute on March 9, 2026, with each side bearing its own costs; settlement terms were not disclosed. Treat the precise procedural vehicle as needing confirmation — see Note 1 below.
• Sources: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/271585 ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/4:23-cv-00752/doc/analysis/1 ; https://www.seoulwire.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=[712111](/patent/712111)

2. Sung v. Texas Instruments Inc.

• Court / Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case No.: 4:23-cv-00753
• Filed: August 21, 2023
• Plaintiff: Chien-Min Sung
• Defendant: Texas Instruments Inc. (TI)
• Patents asserted: U.S. 9,138,862 ('862); U.S. 9,724,802 ('802); U.S. 8,974,270 ('270)
• '862-specific allegations: The complaint asserted claim 1 of the '862 patent as a method claim, again targeting TI's use of third-party conditioners (e.g., 3M's Trizact pad conditioner).
• Status/Outcome: Unconfirmed. The docket shows TI filed a motion for summary judgment, which prompted Samsung (in the parallel 4:23-cv-00752 case) to move to stay its case pending resolution of TI's motion (Samsung's motion to stay was filed ~May 2024; Dr. Sung opposed it — Dkt. 62, filed June 11, 2024). I could not confirm on the searched sources the disposition of TI's MSJ or the final outcome of 4:23-cv-00753. Given the March 2026 global settlement reported in the Samsung case, it is plausible (but not verified) this case resolved similarly.
• Sources: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/4:23-cv-00753/doc/analysis/1 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2024-00533/... (Dkt. 62 excerpt)

3. Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, et al. v. Sung, Chien-Min (IPR)

• Forum: USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (inter partes review)
• Proceeding No.: IPR2024-00534
• Filed (Petition): February 29, 2024
• Petitioner: Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. (Samsung entities)
• Patent Owner / Respondent: Chien-Min Sung
• Patent challenged: U.S. 9,138,862 (application 13/802,112; Tech Center 3700)
• Institution Decision: September 18, 2024
• Final Written Decision (FWD): September 17, 2025
• Outcome: Claims held unpatentable (Outcome: "Unpatentable"). Status: Final Written Decision – Appealed.
• Note: This PTAB proceeding was the counterpart to Samsung's IPR2024-00533 (challenging the '270 patent) and IPR2024-00535 (challenging the '802 patent).
• Sources: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00534 ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00534/samsung-austin-semiconductor-llc-v-sung-chien-min

4. Chien-Min Sung v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (Federal Circuit appeal)

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Appeal No.: 26-1528 (per the Google Patents litigation record for US9138862)
• Appellant: Chien-Min Sung
• Appellees: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC
• Subject: Appeal from PTAB IPR2024-00534 (the '862 patent)
• Status: The record indicates the appeal was resolved by dismissal pursuant to settlement (Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)), consistent with the March 2026 settlement report. Caveat: I confirmed a nonprecedential Federal Circuit dismissal order in Appeal No. 26-1197 (issued March 9, 2026, dismissing the appeal arising from IPR2024-00533, the '270 patent) under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), each side bearing its own costs. I did not independently verify the text of the 26-1528 order in the searches run, but the Google Patents record lists 26-1528 as the '862 appeal and the reported global settlement is consistent with its dismissal.
• Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9138862/en (litigation links) ; https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1197.ORDER.3-9-2026_2658180.pdf

B. Family-related proceedings in which the '862 appears (not necessarily the asserted patent)

5. Sung v. Kinik Co.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case No.: 1:20-cv-00247-RGA
• Filed: February 20, 2020
• Plaintiff: Chien-Min Sung
• Defendant: Kinik Company (Taiwan)
• Patent asserted: The Delaware action asserted U.S. 9,724,802 (the '802 patent), not the '862. In its IPR petition (IPR2021-00638, Kinik v. Sung), Kinik identified U.S. 7,762,872; 8,398,466; 8,974,270; and 9,138,862 as "Parent Patents" being litigated in the parallel Taiwan litigation between the same parties over a 1996–2011 joint venture agreement. Thus, the '862 appears in this dispute as a parent patent / family member and in the Taiwan actions, but the U.S. Delaware case itself was pleaded on the '802 patent.
• Status/Outcome: Closed (per case records). The related PTAB proceeding IPR2021-00638 (Kinik challenging the '802 patent) resulted in cancellation of the challenged claims. The underlying ownership dispute traces to an intellectual-property assignment/license conflict; Sung was reassigned the patents in 2021 and again in 2023 (see Google Patents assignment history for US9138862).
• Sources: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:20-cv-00247/sung-v-kinik-co ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00535/... (Mandatory Notice listing Sung v. Kinik, 1:20-cv-00247) ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-00638/...

6. Taiwan litigation (Sung v. Kinik / Kinik v. Sung)

• Forum: Taiwan (Intellectual Property Court) and related proceedings
• Plaintiff/Defendant: Chien-Min Sung and Kinik Company (overlapping claims, including a Kinik declaratory-judgment action filed June 10, 2020 seeking rights to practice and transfer of title to the '802 patent)
• Patents implicated (family): including 7,762,872; 8,398,466; 8,974,270; and 9,138,862
• Status: A 2021 Taiwan settlement transcript (August 13, 2021) resolved ownership as between the parties and was relied upon in subsequent U.S. assignment filings.
• Sources: Kinik IPR2021-00638 Petition and exhibits (docketalarm.com)

C. Notes, cautions, and items I could not fully verify

1. The "settlement terminates the case" reporting is imprecise about which vehicle closed. The Korean report (Seoul Wire, March 19, 2026) states the Federal Circuit approved the settlement and officially closed "the patent suit Dr. Sung filed against Samsung," and that this began with the August 2023 E.D. Tex. complaint. The Federal Circuit, however, only handles appeals. The confirmed Federal Circuit action I found is the March 9, 2026 dismissal of Appeal No. 26-1197 (from IPR2024-00533, the '270 patent). Appeal 26-1528 is listed for the '862 patent. I recommend confirming the actual docket entries for 26-1528 (and the district-court E.D. Tex. dockets for 4:23-cv-00752 / -00753) via PACER and the Federal Circuit before relying on a precise termination mechanism.
2. Original assignee / ownership history bears on standing. US9138862's Google Patents record shows the patent was originally held by the individual inventor, assigned to Kinik Company (2014), reassigned back to Sung (Aug. 19, 2021), then Kinik took a license (Sept. 13, 2021), and the patent was assigned to Chien-Min Sung (Aug. 21, 2023). The Delaware action (2020) and the IPRs arose against this backdrop, and Kinik's IPR petition and the parties' filings disputed ownership. Standing/ownership was a live issue.
3. Google Patents' "family has litigation" listing (Delaware 1:20-cv-00247; PTAB IPR2024-00534; CAFC 26-1528; E.D. Tex. 4:23-cv-00753 and 4:23-cv-00752) is a family-level association. Not every listed case asserts the '862 patent: the E.D. Tex. cases (Nos. 4:23-cv-00752 and -00753) and IPR2024-00534 do involve the '862; the Delaware case (1:20-cv-00247) was pleaded on the '802 patent, with the '862 appearing as a parent/family patent. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9138862/en)
4. Unverified: the final outcome of Sung v. Texas Instruments, No. 4:23-cv-00753, and the specific order text in Federal Circuit Appeal No. 26-1528. I could not locate dispositive confirmatory documents within the searches performed; I have flagged these rather than fill the gaps by inference.

Bottom line: Known U.S. litigation directly involving U.S. 9,138,862 comprises (i) two E.D. Tex. infringement suits filed August 21, 2023 against Samsung (4:23-cv-00752) and Texas Instruments (4:23-cv-00753); (ii) the PTAB inter partes review IPR2024-00534, which found the '862 claims unpatentable (FWD Sept. 17, 2025); and (iii) the resulting Federal Circuit appeal 26-1528, apparently resolved by settlement/dismissal in March 2026. The Delaware suit (1:20-cv-00247) and the Taiwan actions involve the same patent family (Kinik dispute) but were pleaded on other family patents, with the '862 appearing as a parent patent.

If you'd like, I can try to pull the specific PACER/Federal Circuit docket entries for 4:23-cv-00753 and Appeal No. 26-1528 to nail down those two open items.

I'll verify the PTAB and Federal Circuit dockets through the available sources.

Let me pull the Final Written Decision outcome and confirm the Federal Circuit posture on the '862 appeal.

⚠️ Contradiction flagged before anything else

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt states that the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 9,138,862. That is directly contradicted by the live sources: IPR2024‑00534 is a fully documented, institution‑granted IPR on this exact patent, with a Final Written Decision and a pending Federal Circuit appeal (institution decision, PTAB docket, and CAFC docket all retrieved below). This is a hard contradiction, not a nuance.

Per the task instruction ("flag any you find"), I am proceeding on the web‑corroborated docket rather than the empty structured block. The most likely explanation for the gap is ODP ingest lag — the block appears to reflect only currently-open/pending trial phases, and this trial reached FWD on 2025‑09‑17. Do not rely on the structured block for this patent. Everything below is sourced to the retrieved dockets; where I could not retrieve a primary document, I say so.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US 9,138,862 — IPR2024‑00534, status "Final Written Decision – Appealed," with a reported outcome of Unpatentable across the challenged claims (claims 1–20) — meaning that, on the current record, every claim of the '862 patent stands adjudicated unpatentable, subject only to Sung's pending CAFC appeal; a defendant facing assertion today should treat the '862 patent as invalid‑as‑adjudicated, not hardened, and should demand that any demand letter identify a claim that survived.

IPR2024-00534 — Samsung (four entities) v. Chien-Min Sung

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2024-02-29 (filing date accorded 2024-02-29; § 42.106 notice issued 2024-03-28)
• Status: "Final Written Decision - Appealed" (per PTAB tracker/ipverse). Gloss: the Board issued its final decision on the merits; Sung has appealed to the Federal Circuit, so the invalidation is not yet final.
• Judge panel: Barry L. Grossman (writing), George R. Hoskins, Frances L. Ippolito, Administrative Patent Judges (confirmed from the institution decision caption; the same panel sat on the two companion IPRs).
• Parties: Petitioner = a single petitioner comprising Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.); Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (all four named as RPI). Patent Owner = Chien-Min Sung, individually ("owner of the patent under review"). Petitioner counsel: Yung-Hoon (Sam) Ha et al. (Desmarais LLP); Patent Owner counsel: Alex Chan et al. (Devlin Law Firm).
• Petition grounds / claims challenged: All claims 1–20 were challenged ("challenging every claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,138,862," per Defendants' district‑court stay notice). I could not retrieve the petition's ground‑by‑ground statement from a primary source, so I will not state the specific § 102/§ 103 references from memory — that must be verified against the Petition. Relevant signal: Petitioner's July 2024 request to file a reply to the POPR specifically sought to address Patent Owner's "inconsistent positions … regarding Sung'026 (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0060026)" as between the '533 and '535 POPRs, indicating Sung'026‑type art was in play across the family. Priority date applied "for the purposes of this IPR only" = 2011-05-23 (the '862 patent's earliest claimed priority).
• Institution decision: Instituted 2024-09-18 (Paper 14, "DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314"). The Board declined discretionary denial under § 314(a)/Fintiv after authorizing additional briefing (Prelim. Reply and Sur‑reply), expressly stating it would "not exercise our discretion to deny institution." On the merits it found the Petition demonstrated "a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim." A § 42.5 Scheduling Order issued the same day (Paper 15).
• Final Written Decision: 2025-09-17. Reported outcome: "Unpatentable" as to the challenged claims 1–20 (PTAB tracker "Outcome: Unpatentable"; termination date 2025-09-17). Caveat — I could not retrieve the FWD document text itself, so I cannot quote the panel's reasoning or confirm claim‑by‑claim granularity (e.g., whether any dependent claim was separately sustained, or whether the outcome rests on anticipation vs. obviousness). The "claims 1–20 unpatentable" characterization comes from the aggregated PTAB tracker, not the FWD's four corners. Verify against the FWD on PTAB E2E before relying on it. Timing note: institution 2024-09-18 → FWD 2025-09-17, consistent with the statutory one‑year § 316(a)(11) deadline.
• Settlement / termination: No termination‑by‑settlement in the IPR before FWD; the trial ran to a merits FWD. Any later settlement was at the appellate/district‑court level (see Appeal).
• Appeal: Yes — CAFC No. 26-1528, Sung v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., listed as an appeal from IPR2024‑00534, filed 2026-03-17, appellant Sung, judge assignment pending, outcome pending (per the CAFC tracker page). ⚠️ Two unresolved anomalies: (1) a 2026‑03‑17 filing is roughly six months after the 2025‑09‑17 FWD, well outside the § 90.3 63‑day window — irreconcilable from the retrieved data; and (2) a Korean press report (Seoul Wire, 2026‑03‑19) states the parties settled and the appeal was terminated, describing a CAFC order dated 2026-03-09. That CAFC order (26‑1197, below) is captioned to IPR2024-00533, not IPR2024‑00534, so the settlement report may refer only to the '270 appeal. Confirm on PACER/CAFC whether 26‑1528 was likewise dismissed.
• Defensive value: The Board adjudicated all 20 claims unpatentable. If your demand letter cites any '862 claim, the answer is that claims 1–20 have been held unpatentable by the PTAB — subject to the pending 26‑1528 appeal. That is the strongest possible defensive posture short of affirmance: the patent is, on paper, dead. Do not treat it as a live, hardened patent unless and until 26‑1528 reverses. Link to the FWD via PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ (search IPR2024-00534; institution decision mirrored at the Docket Alarm link below).

Primary sources for IPR2024-00534:

• Institution Decision (2024-09-18): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00534/Samsung_Austin_Semiconductor_LLC_v._Sung_Chien-Min/docs/09-18-2024-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-14-Institution_Decision__DECISION_Granting_Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review_35_USC_%C2%A7_314.pdf
• Case tracker: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00534 and https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00534/samsung-austin-semiconductor-llc-v-sung-chien-min
• CAFC 26-1528: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/cafc/26-1528/sung-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd

Related AIA proceedings on sibling patents (NOT proceedings on the '862 — do not count them)

These are relevant because they show the same petitioner's coordinated campaign and the same panel, but they are directed to different patents and must not be reported as proceedings on US 9,138,862:

• IPR2024-00533 — Samsung v. Sung, on US 8,974,270. Filed 2024-02-29; same panel. Appeal: CAFC No. 26-1197, dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 2026-03-09, each side bearing its own costs (nonprecedential order, sourced below). The Seoul Wire report (2026-03-19) characterizes this dismissal as a settlement, terms undisclosed.
• IPR2024-00535 — Samsung v. Sung, on US 9,724,802. Filed 2024-02-29; same panel; POPR-reply practice overlapped with '533/'534.
• IPR2021-00638 — Kinik Company petitioner, on US 9,724,802 (again, not the '862). Notably, Exhibit 1014 in that petition was "the File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,138,862" ("862 FH Art"), used as prior art against the '802 patent. Relevant only as context — the '862 patent's own file history has been weaponized as prior art in the family.

CAFC 26-1197 order (primary source): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1197.ORDER.3-9-2026_2658180.pdf

Strategic summary

Claim status. Sole AIA proceeding on the '862 = IPR2024-00534, challenged claims 1–20 (the entire patent). Reported FWD outcome: claims 1–20 unpatentable (tracker‑sourced; FWD text not retrieved for verbatim confirmation). No claim of US 9,138,862 is reported as sustained. Subject to the pending 26-1528 appeal, the patent has zero surviving claims. This is not a "narrowed but intact" patent — it is an all‑claims‑invalidated patent on appeal.

Estoppel landscape. Samsung (and its privies) are the § 315(e)(2)‑estopped party: once the FWD issued (2025-09-17) they are barred, in the district court and before the ITC, from asserting any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised against claims 1–20. For any other defendant — a company now receiving an assertion letter, or a supplier (3M, Saesol, Shinhan, Abrasive Technology, EHWA were the accused instrumentalities in the E.D. Tex. case) — no estoppel applies, and the full prior‑art universe remains available. Such a party can (a) raise any § 102/§ 103 theory independently, and (b) point to the '534 FWD as persuasive/adjudicated evidence that claims 1–20 are unpatentable. Note that with every claim already adjudicated invalid, a new IPR petition on the '862 would face § 325(d)/redundancy headwinds — the cleaner play is to rely on the existing FWD plus issue preclusion/estoppel arguments against the patent owner rather than file a fresh IPR on a dead patent.

Pattern signals. This is a serial‑assertion‑then‑coordinated‑IPR pattern: Sung asserted three patents against Samsung in E.D. Tex. (Sung v. Samsung Electronics, No. 4:23‑cv‑00752 and a companion 4:23‑cv‑00753 against Texas Instruments, filed August 2023), and Samsung answered by filing three parallel IPRs on 2024-02-29 challenging every claim of all three patents (00533/00534/00535) — a textbook "kill the whole family" strategy that succeeded at the Board. Samsung also moved to stay the district case pending the IPRs. The patent owner then pursued PTAB appeals (26‑1197, now dismissed; 26‑1528, status uncertain), with the reported resolution being settlement at the appellate stage (Seoul Wire). No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the '862 chain — the petitioner is Samsung itself, a real‑party defendant. (An unrelated IPR2021‑00638 involving Kinik exists on the sibling '802 patent; Kinik was also the assignee history counterpart to the 2020 Delaware suit Sung v. Kinik, No. 1:20‑cv‑00247, dismissed on settlement.)

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant now being asserted on the '862: lead with IPR2024-00534. The Board instituted on all challenged claims (2024-09-18) and the reported FWD (2025-09-17) held claims 1–20 unpatentable. Demand that the patent owner identify which, if any, claim survived — on the reported record, none did. Pull the FWD from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and quote its disposition order verbatim; the tracker characterization must be confirmed against the document, which is exactly what I could not do here.
• Confirm the appeal's fate before you rely on finality. Verify on PACER/CAFC (https://cafc.uscourts.gov or CourtListener) whether 26-1528 remains pending or was dismissed. The retrieved CAFC tracker shows it filed 2026-03-17, pending judge assignment; the press report indicates a settlement and dismissal on 2026-03-09 — but that order is captioned to 26-1197/IPR2024-00533. Reconcile the two. If 26-1528 was in fact dismissed, the invalidation of claims 1–20 becomes effectively final and the patent is unenforceable as to those claims.
• Chain‑of‑title diligence. The '862 patent has an unusually mobile ownership history (individual → Kinik 2014 → back to Sung 2021 → license to Kinik 2021 → Sung 2023), and the PTAB record confirms Sung identified himself individually as RPI/owner in 2024. Before negotiating anything, confirm current ownership and standing via USPTO Assignment records — the same issue (constitutional/statutory standing) was litigated in the parallel Samsung district case.
• If instead you want to know whether a fresh IPR is worthwhile: it generally is not, for a patent whose every claim has already been adjudicated unpatentable and which remains under appeal. The better move is to preserve the FWD as evidence and monitor 26-1528.
• No‑PTAB caveat for other readers: for sibling patents the analysis differs — the '270 appeal (26‑1197) was dismissed 2026-03-09, and the '802 (IPR2024-00535) outcome is not resolved in the sources I retrieved. Do not port the '862 result onto those patents.

Sources cited: PTAB institution decision (IPR2024-00534, 2024-09-18) via Docket Alarm; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00534 ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00534/samsung-austin-semiconductor-llc-v-sung-chien-min ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/cafc/26-1528/sung-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd ; https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1197.ORDER.3-9-2026_2658180.pdf ; https://www.seoulwire.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=[712111](/patent/712111) ; E.D. Tex. stay notice via Docket Alarm (IPR2024-00533 Ex. 1027). Not retrieved / must verify: the IPR2024-00534 Final Written Decision text itself, the Petition's specific grounds and references, and the current status of CAFC 26-1528.

I'll search for the assignment records and related ownership data for this patent.

Let me dig for the specific reel/frame records and the recording correspondents.

Let me try to pull the actual assignment records and the correspondent patterns.

Ownership-chain reconstruction — US 9,138,862 B2 ("CMP pad dresser having leveled tips and associated methods")

Source limitation (read first). The USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search is a JavaScript application that returns records only through its own UI/API; I was unable to pull the underlying record set in this session. I therefore could not retrieve reel/frame numbers, and I will not invent them. What follows is built from (a) the assignment events exposed on the Google Patents legal-events tab, (b) the actual assignment/recordation documents and USPTO acknowledgement receipts that were filed into the PTAB record and are quotable, and (c) the litigation/PTAB record. Every element I could not verify is marked [unverified]. Verify reel/frame at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "9138862") — the same underlying records are surfaced at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

Inventors

Pattern note. There is only one inventor, so the "all inventors departed within 12 months" fire-sale tell is not applicable. The unusual pattern here is different and material: the patent was filed by Sung personally as an individual, while Kinik asserted (and Sung later disputed) that the patent arose from the JVA. The prosecution firm's power of attorney was revoked by an intervening assignee under 37 C.F.R. §3.71 — a direct documentary tell of an ownership fight over this application (USPTO Notice Regarding Change of Power of Attorney and Notice of Acceptance of Power of Attorney, filed 19‑AUG‑2021).

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: the front page lists the applicant/original assignee as "Individual" — Chien-Min Sung (Tansui, TW). FreePatentsOnline lists "Assignee: SUNG CHIEN-MIN." Google Patents also lists "Individual" as the 2013-03-13 filer.
• Primary line of business: none — this is a lone-inventor holding, not an operating company. Sung's commercial activity in this space ran through Kinik Company (Taiwan; a publicly traded maker of CMP pad conditioners, diamond tools and abrasives) and Advanced Diamond Solutions / Kinik-USA.
• Did the original assignee ship a product embodying the claims? Not in his own name. The practicing entity in this technology is Kinik, which manufactures and imports pad conditioners and superabrasive products into the U.S. (3M/UAS Amended Complaint ¶10). Kinik is today a licensee of the patent, not the owner (2021-09-13 license event).
• Current status: Sung is a living individual holder. Kinik Company is an operating, publicly listed Taiwanese company (not dissolved, not bankrupt).

Contradiction to flag against the prior summary. The earlier section said the original assignee was recorded "simply as 'Individual.'" That is right for the front page, but Google Patents' legal-events tab shows an assignment recorded to KINIK COMPANY on 2014-08-19 — i.e., Kinik was on the record as an assignee years before the patent issued. This is consistent with the parties' JVA dispute and should not be read as a simple scrivener's error. [reel/frame unverified]

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignments visible in Google Patents legal events (dates as surfaced; execution dates and reel/frame [unverified]):

1. 2014-08-19 (recorded) [execution date unverified] — Reel [unverified]

   • Conveyance: "Agreements affecting interest" (Google Patents category)
   • Assignor: Sung, Chien-Min, Dr.
   • Assignee: KINIK COMPANY
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: JVA-related ownership recordation — Kinik gets onto the title record of the '862 while the application is still pending.

2. 2021-08-19 (recorded; settlement executed 2021-08-13 before the Taiwan IP Court) — Reel [unverified]

   • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded via a "Miscellaneous Incoming Letter" captioned Assignment-Kinik-to-Sung.pdf, filed against parent app. 13/479,148; Schedule A lists the assigned patents 9868100 / 9724802 / 8777699 / 9138862 / 8974270)
   • Assignor: KINIK COMPANY ("has disclaimed that Assignor has such right, title, and interest … subject to … the Settlement Transcript … agreed and executed … on 13 August 2021")
   • Assignee: Sung, Chien-Min, Dr. (individual)
   • Correspondent: James Michael Lennon / Jennifer Picini, Devlin Law Firm LLC, 1526 Gilpin Ave., Wilmington, DE 19806 (customer no. 134688); "Filer Authorized By: James Michael Lennon"; attorney docket 02074-24012.NP. This is the same Devlin firm that runs Sung's assertion litigation — see signal 3.
   • Context: Settlement-driven transfer resolving the Kinik/Sung ownership dispute; Kinik disclaims and conveys back, expressly including "all claims, demands, or causes of action … including the right to sue and collect damages for all past, present and future infringement."

3. 2021-09-13 — Reel [unverified]

   • Conveyance: License
   • Assignor: Sung, Chien-Min
   • Assignee: KINIK COMPANY
   • Correspondent: not retrieved (Devlin firm is the acting counsel of record on the parallel files) [unverified]
   • Context: License-back — Kinik keeps freedom to operate/immunity while Sung retains title and enforcement rights.

4. 2023-08-21 — Reel [unverified]

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
   • Assignor: KINIK COMPANY
   • Assignee: CHIEN-MIN SUNG
   • Correspondent: not retrieved; Devlin Law Firm is Sung's counsel of record in the suits filed the same day [unverified]
   • Context: Pre-litigation title cleanup / standing transfer. The E.D. Tex. complaints asserting this patent (4:23-cv-00752 and 4:23-cv-00753) were filed Aug. 21, 2023 — the same date as this assignment.

Anomaly to flag: there appear to be two Kinik→Sung assignment events (2021-08-19 and 2023-08-21). That can be a confirmatory/curative instrument or a second settlement-required conveyance; I could not verify which, and the reel/frame would settle it.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9138862
    2011 : Earliest priority 23 May
    2012 : Parent app filed 23 May
    2013 : Filed by Chien-Min Sung
    2014 : Kinik recorded as assignee
    2015 : Patent issued 22 Sep
    2020 : Sung sues Kinik in Delaware
    2021 : Kinik assigns back to Sung
         : Sung grants license to Kinik
         : Taiwan settlement 13 Aug
    2023 : Kinik assigns to Sung again
         : Texas suits filed same day
    2024 : Samsung files IPRs
    2025 : Claims held unpatentable
    2026 : Appeal to Federal Circuit

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The chain runs individual ↔ operating company (Chien-Min Sung ↔ Kinik Company), not operating company → anonymous licensing LLC. There is no "IP / Patents / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" assignee anywhere in the record, no registered-agent-service address, and no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC. Kinik has a real address (10 Yenping S. Rd., Taipei) and real products. The current holder is a natural person.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (but note the individual-asserter analogue). No assignee in this chain matches the named lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities, or any Unified/RPX high-frequency plaintiff). However, the Stanford NPE litigation database lists "Chien-Min Sung" as the Patent Asserter in Sung v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al., 4:23-cv-00752 (E.D. Tex., filed Aug. 21, 2023), with "NPE Status Unknown." So he functions as a serial individual asserter without appearing on a named NPE roster.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT (strong). The Devlin Law Firm LLC (1526 Gilpin Ave., Wilmington, DE 19806) acts as both the recording correspondent on the ownership chain and Sung's litigation counsel:

• Recording side: the 2021-08-19 Kinik→Sung transfer paperwork (POA, 37 C.F.R. §3.73 ownership showing, and Assignment-Kinik-to-Sung.pdf) was filed by James Michael Lennon / Jennifer Picini of Devlin (customer no. 134688), authorized by James Michael Lennon.
• Assertion side: Timothy Devlin (Reg. No. 41,706) and Alex Chan (Reg. No. 52,713), both Devlin Law Firm LLC at the same address, are Sung's lead/backup counsel in IPR2021-00638 (mandatory notices, Mar. 31, 2021) and appear as respondent counsel in IPR2024-00534. Devlin also appears on the Delaware and E.D. Tex. dockets.
  The shell-vs-lawyer tell is exactly this: one firm maintains the title record and litigates the patent. One caveat for precision: I verified Devlin as correspondent on the 2021-08-19 entry; the 2014 and 2023 recordation correspondents were not retrieved, so "repeat recording correspondent" is proven for only one link, while "same firm recording + asserting" is proven across the chain and the litigation.

4. Cascading transfers — PARTIAL / UNCLEAR. Four recorded events over ~9 years is not a fast cascade. But note two transfers within ~25 days in 2021 (Kinik→Sung assignment on 2021-08-19 and Sung→Kinik license on 2021-09-13) and a third Kinik→Sung assignment in 2023, all handled through the same Wilmington, DE counsel address. That is a chained, counsel-coordinated restructuring rather than an arm's-length market transfer.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (strong). The Kinik→Chien-Min Sung assignment is dated 2023-08-21 — the very day the E.D. Tex. infringement complaints (4:23-cv-00752 / 4:23-cv-00753) asserting the '862 were filed. That squarely satisfies "within 6 months before the first infringement suit naming this patent," and it is best explained as standing/title cleanup: Kinik had been a recorded assignee since 2014-08-19, so a clean Kinik→Sung conveyance had to be on the record before Sung asserted against Samsung.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Neither assignor nor assignee is in bankruptcy. Kinik Company is an operating, publicly listed Taiwanese manufacturer.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR. The structure resembles privateering — an operating company (Kinik) ends up a licensee (2021-09-13), immune from the patent, while title sits with an individual who sues downstream semiconductor makers (Samsung) that buy pad conditioners. But I found no evidence Kinik directed or financed Sung's Samsung suits; on the contrary, Kinik sued Sung in the U.S. (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00247, Feb. 20, 2020) and in Taiwan (June 10, 2020) to establish its rights. Calling this privateering would be inference, not evidence.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at a natural person (Chien-Min Sung). It has not been neutralized by RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. Unified Patents appears here only as petitioner-side counsel in the Samsung IPRs, which is a defensive challenge, not an acquisition.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

This is a genuine, actionable signal set, but it does not look like a corporate shell-NPE formation, so I decline to call it high confidence: the two strong signals are pre-litigation transfer (Kinik→Chien-Min Sung assignment recorded 2023-08-21, the exact filing date of E.D. Tex. 4:23-cv-00752/753 asserting this patent) and repeat correspondent (Devlin Law Firm LLC, same 1526 Gilpin Ave. Wilmington address, filing the 2021-08-19 Kinik→Sung ownership paperwork and serving as Timothy Devlin/Alex Chan counsel of record in IPR2021-00638 and IPR2024-00534). What keeps this out of "high confidence" is that the owner is a natural person, Chien-Min Sung, not a shell LLC — signals 1 and 2 are absent — and the 2023 transfer is a standing repair following a real, litigated ownership dispute with Kinik (settled via the Taiwan IP Court settlement transcript of 2021-08-13), not a fresh purchase of a patent for assertion. Note also the related nuance: Kinik remains a licensee (2021-09-13), so an operating company is licensed while the individual asserts.

Verify at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html and https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9138862" / app. 13/802,112) to capture the reel/frame numbers, execution dates, and 2014/2023 recording correspondents marked [unverified] above.

I'll research US 9,138,862 and its cited prior art. Let me search authoritative sources.

Let me get the complete "References Cited" list and the examiner-cited prior art from the patent's front page.

I have strong leads on the IPR grounds. Let me pull the petition's exact grounds table and the full front-page references-cited list.

Prior Art Analysis — US 9,138,862 B2

Method / confidence caveat. I researched this through Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline (FPO), and the PTAB/IPR record (Docket Alarm, PTAB CTS, Unified/ex parte trackers) rather than a direct USPTO PatentCenter API pull, consistent with the caveat in the previously generated summary. I was able to retrieve the full U.S. patent-citation list from the FPO copy of the front page, but not a verbatim image of every foreign document or the examiner's NPL citations, and the full-text block you supplied is truncated before the claim set. I flag where that matters below and do not invent entries to fill gaps.

Also, building on the earlier section: the patent is now personally held by Chien-Min Sung, and the operative invalidity record is IPR2024-00534, where the Board instituted Sept. 18, 2024 and the FWD (Sept. 17, 2025) reported claims 1–20 unpatentable, now on appeal as CAFC 26-1528. That IPR record — not the face-of-patent citations — contains the most relevant prior art for this patent, so I begin there.

A. The most probative prior art (as actually applied against this patent)

These are the references the Samsung petitioners relied on in IPR2024-00534, and they are the references that defeated (or were asserted to defeat) the claims. They are more relevant than the examiner-cited art because they were mapped element-by-element to the claims.

Caveat on the § 102 labels. Only Sung '026 was formally advanced as an anticipation (§ 102) reference (Ground 1A). Every other ground in IPR2024-00534 was an obviousness (§ 103) challenge. The FWD outcome is reported as "Unpatentable" for claims 1–20, but the retrieved tracker does not break that down per ground, so I cannot state with confidence whether the cancellation rested on the § 102 ground or on § 103. Treat the § 102 mapping for Sung '026 as "as alleged by Petitioner," not as an adjudicated finding.

Related family art that bears on priority (not necessarily cited against '862):

• US 2012/0302146 A1 ("Sung '146", publ. Nov. 29, 2012) — this is the publication of application 13/479,148, which the '862 names as its parent (CIP). Because '146 published after the '862's asserted May 23, 2011 priority, its status depends on which claims get provisional support — a live issue given the CIP chain.
• US 8,974,270 B2 and US 9,724,802 B2 — the '862's sibling/parent patents, asserted with it in E.D. Tex. 4:23-cv-00752 and challenged in companion IPRs IPR2024-00533 and IPR2024-00535.

B. References cited on the face of US 9,138,862 (patent citations)

The FPO front-page listing ("US Patent References") is reproduced below. Note: nearly all of these are the inventor's own earlier Sung patents/applications (self-citations), which the examiner listed as background; without the office actions I cannot reliably map them to specific claim numbers, and I will not fabricate such a mapping.

U.S. patent citations (issued patents):

U.S. patent-application publications cited:

Foreign patent documents cited (partial — the front page lists a continuation of Box C, which the retrieved copy shows only in part):

I could also see the front-page formatting for a large "FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS" block (EP/CA/CN/JP entries) and long lists of early-20th-century U.S. patents (e.g., Brown 187,593; Schacht 1,854,071; Wooddell 1,988,065; Buckner 2,027,087; Melton 2,033,591; Ogden 2,307,461 — the last flagged with an examiner asterisk as particularly relevant). I could not retrieve the complete enumeration, so the list above should be verified against the printed front page.

C. Which references are the real anticipation candidates

1. Sung '026 (US 2007/0060026 A1, pub. Mar. 15, 2007) — the only reference formally asserted under § 102, against claims 1–6, 9–12, 20. Its reverse-casting/leveled-tip-in-organic-matrix disclosure is the closest facial match to the '862's protrusion-uniformity and cutting-depth limitations.
2. Sung '146 (US 2012/0302146 A1) — because it is the publication of the '862's own parent application (13/479,148), it is the most dangerous reference on priority/§ 102(b) date grounds if any '862 claim does not find support in the May 23, 2011 provisional. This is a priority question, not a conventional § 102 content match, and should be scrutinized.
3. The remaining face-of-patent citations are predominantly Sung's own earlier work (self-citations) plus a few third-party art items (Duescher, Palmgren, Kim, Behr, Song, Boutaghou, Dinh-Ngoc, Hall, Shen). As listed by the examiner they read as background art, not art mapped to individual claims.

Bottom line: For a § 102 inquiry, the two references that matter are Sung '026 (content anticipation of claims 1–6, 9–12, 20, as alleged) and Sung '146 (priority-date exposure as the parent's own publication). Everything else on the front page is either self-cited background or third-party background that I could not tie to a specific claim from the sources retrieved.

D. Items I could not verify (do not treat as established)

• The exact publication number of the "Sung'CPt" reference used in Ground 2, and the identities of the Grounds 3–6 references. I'd need the petition itself to confirm.
• The complete face-of-patent citation list, including the full foreign-document box and any NPL citations.
• Whether the FWD's "unpatentable" outcome rested on the § 102 ground (Ground 1A) or on the § 103 grounds for each claim.
• Any literal claim-number mapping between the examiner-cited references and specific '862 claims.
• The '862 claim set itself (text block truncated before the claims), so I describe claims by the abstract/specification rather than verbatim.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9138862/en · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[9138862](/patent/9138862).html · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00534/Samsung_Austin_Semiconductor_LLC_v._Sung_Chien-Min/docs/09-18-2024-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-14-Institution_Decision__DECISION_Granting_Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review_35_USC_%C2%A7_314.pdf · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00534/Samsung_Austin_Semiconductor_LLC_v._Sung_Chien-Min/docs/12-11-2024-Patent_Owner/PO_Response_to_Pet-17-Patent_Owners_Response.pdf · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00535/Samsung_Austin_Semiconductor_LLC/docs/02-29-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1002-EX1002___Expert_Decl_.pdf · https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00534 · https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00534/samsung-austin-semiconductor-llc-v-sung-chien-min

I'll pull the prior-art citations for this patent and the IPR2024‑00534 record, which bear directly on a § 103 analysis.

Let me get the specific prior-art references cited against this patent and the grounds in the IPR.

Let me pin down the specific references cited on the patent face and the IPR grounds.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,138,862 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Scope note on the "Prior Art section"

The authoritative page text supplied to me contains only the Google Patents "Prior art keywords" block (dresser; superabrasive particles; cmp pad; superabrasive; monolayer) and the bibliographic/litigation fields — the "Citations / Cited By" reference lists and the printed "References Cited" block are not in the excerpt. So I ground this analysis on (a) the obviousness-relevant admissions inside the specification you supplied, which is authoritative, and (b) the operative prior-art set actually used against this exact patent in IPR2024‑00534, which I retrieved. Where I identify a reference only by the name used in the PTAB record (e.g., "Puthanangady," "An," "SungICPt"), I say so rather than invent a document number. Identifiers are read literally and not auto-corrected.

Verified prior-art set (from the IPR record):

• Sung '026 = U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0060026 A1, filed as U.S. Application No. 11/223,786 (per Petitioner's July 2024 request, which states the identity verbatim). This is the primary reference in IPR2024‑00534: Ground 1A (anticipation of claims 1–6, 9–12, 20), Ground 1B (obviousness of claims 1–6, 9–12, 20), and Ground 2 (Sung '026 + "SungICPt," claims 5–10). Grounds 2–6 are additional combinations.
• Tsai — the M.Y. Tsai CMP-pad-dresser literature (e.g., Novel Diamond Conditioner Dressing Characteristics of CMP Polishing Pad, Int'l J. Machine Tools & Manufacture 49 (2009) 722–729; Dressing Characteristics of Oriented Single Diamond on CMP Polyurethane Pad, Machining Sci. & Tech. 13:1, 92–105), used as EX1004 in the parallel IPR2024‑00535 and appearing on the Patent Owner's own exhibit list (Exs. 2002–2005) in IPR2024‑00534.
• Chou = WO 02/29106 A1 (PCT, published Apr. 11, 2002) — abrasive particles in mirror arrangement on opposing sides of a thin metal layer, with a "backplane."
• Puthanangady — CMP pad conditioner with particles on both sides of a central support ("two working surfaces") and a substrate that "substantially withstands the chemical and mechanical conditions."
• An — an abrasive dressing tool for CMP pads.
• Caveat: the Chou / Puthanangady / An excerpts I retrieved appear in briefing captioned to U.S. Patent No. 8,777,699, a sibling Sung patent — not the '862. I therefore treat those three as the analogous-art set applied to the two-monolayer/warpage subject matter, and flag that their use against the '862 claims specifically needs docket-level confirmation.

1. Legal frame and POSITA

• Pre‑AIA § 103(a) applies. The '862 was filed March 13, 2013 — three days before the AIA first-inventor-to-file cutover — as a CIP of 13/479,148 (filed May 23, 2012), itself claiming benefit of provisional 61/489,074 (May 23, 2011). Anything in the '862 claims that is new matter added by the CIP gets an effective date no earlier than March 13, 2013; the rest traces to May 23, 2011/2012. This matters for which references qualify, and it means pre‑AIA § 103(c) (common ownership) is technically available as a disqualification tool for 102(e)-type art — but it does not rescue the '862 from Sung '026, which published in 2007 and is therefore § 102(b) art more than one year before any asserted priority date.
• Burden: invalidity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; the patent carries a presumption of validity. A PTAB § 103 finding, by contrast, is by preponderance — relevant for the parallel-track posture, not for a district-court merits call.
• POSITA (my construction, consistent with the record's experts): a person with a bachelor's degree in materials science, mechanical engineering, or a related field and roughly 3–5 years of experience in CMP consumables (pads, slurries, conditioners), or equivalent experience; familiar with diamond grit grading, brazing/electroplating/sintering and organic-matrix "reverse-casting" of conditioners, and with the standard metrics of pad dressing (asperity depth, working-tip fraction, pad consumption, wafer removal rate).
• Claim construction touchpoints: "protrusion difference" is measured from a common reference point (highest tip, rigid-support surface, or normalized against slope/curvature per the spec); "about" imports ordinary range flexibility; the numeric limits (10 µm, 20 µm, 60 µm, 50 µm, 80 µm, 40 µm, 25/50/100 tips, 0.1–60 kg) are result-effective process/geometry variables, not structural unknowns.

2. The specification's own admissions (§ 103 road map)

The '862 specification supplies much of the case against itself:

1. "Traditional CMP pad dresser manufacturing methods, even many of those describing techniques for leveling superabrasive particle tips prior to fixation, generally contain significant variation in tip height." → Leveling diamond tips before fixation is admitted prior art.
2. "fixation techniques that utilize high heat and/or pressure can cause warping… This can be particularly problematic with brazing techniques." → The warpage problem and its source are admitted.
3. "a typical CMP pad dresser can have greater than 10,000 superabrasive particles. Of these 10,000 particles, in some cases there may only be a few working superabrasive particles…" → The benefit of leveling (more working tips, normalized workload) is admitted as the known desideratum, which supplies the motivation for every tolerance recitation.
4. The patent recites the same parameter at multiple levels (≤ 50/20/10 µm two-tip; 30/20 µm top-10; 80/60/40 µm top-1%; 80/60/40 µm asperity depth). Reciting a continuum of values for one variable is the classic "obvious to try" / range-optimization posture under In re Peterson, In re Woodruff, and Iron Grip Barbell — there is no teaching of criticality at any single endpoint.

3. Reference-by-reference disclosure, and the obviousness combinations

Combination A — Sung '026 (US 2007/0060026 A1) alone, or Sung '026 + Tsai → claims 1–6, 9–12, 20

What Sung '026 supplies (as characterized in the IPR record): a CMP pad dresser with superabrasive particles in a solidified organic material layer, tips aligned along a "designated profile" with a tip variation of about 5 µm to about 100 µm (and expressly "less than about 40/30/20 µm above the organic matrix," and a variation as small as about 2 µm); cutting depths of less than about 20 µm, 1–20 µm, and 10–20 µm; and the express teaching that "the superabrasive particles protruding from the epoxy support layer cut the CMP pad to a depth essentially equal to the protrusion distance."

Mapping to claim 1: Every claimed numeric threshold is either literally disclosed or reached a fortiori:

• two-highest-tip difference ≤ ~10 µm and top-10 spread ≤ ~20 µm — sub-ranges of Sung '026's 2 µm and 5–100 µm teachings;
• asperities with maximum cutting depth ~60 µm — Sung '026's "<20 µm" (and Tsai's ~30 µm protrusion) satisfies ≤ 60 µm outright;
• monolayer of particles protruding from a matrix layer — disclosed.

Why a POSITA would combine / arrive there: Sung '026 is the same field (CMP pad dressing), addresses the same defect (non-uniform tip heights → few working grits, unpredictable dressing), and supplies the same manufacturing route (reverse casting in an organic matrix, i.e., low heat/low pressure) that the '862 itself identifies as the way to avoid the brazing-induced warpage admitted in the background. Tsai supplies the articulated "why": un-level tips mean "less than 10% of the diamond grits are engaged in cutting" and a single high grit can cut "50% of the pad consumed during dressing," while flat-plate compression levels tips "to less than 15 µm." That is an express motivation (uniform workload, avoid over-aggressive grits), an express technique (compress with a flat plate), and an express expectation of success (already achieved at <15 µm) — which makes the 10 µm and 20 µm recitations straightforward optimization. Tsai also teaches the **peripheral-region** particle distribution, meeting the "peripheral location" dependent subject matter; and leveling necessarily raises the **number of cutting tips**, meeting "at least 25/50/100 tips" (100 tips is ~1% of a >10,000-particle dresser).

Combination B — Sung '026 + "SungICPt" (Ground 2) → claims 5–10

Petitioner paired Sung '026 with a second Sung-family document ("SungICPt") for the intermediate claims. The combination rationale is the standard one: primary reference teaches the leveled-monolayer dresser and the tip-height-to-cutting-depth relationship; the secondary Sung document supplies the pad-conditioning/asperity-morphology features (asperity depth ranges, working-tip behavior, orientation of apex/edge toward the pad) needed for the narrow claims. Same inventor, same field, same express problem statement — the strongest form of "suggestion" because the references are internally consistent and use the identical vocabulary ("designated profile," "protrusion distance," "asperity").

Combination C — Chou + Puthanangady (+ An) → the two-monolayer / anti-warpage subject matter

Disclosures: Chou shows abrasive particles in a mirror arrangement on both sides of a thin metal layer plus a backplane rigid support. Puthanangady shows a CMP pad conditioner with abrasive particles on both sides of a central support member, i.e., two working surfaces, with a flatness requirement (<0.01 in, in aspects <0.002 in).

Motivation to combine: The '862's own stated problem is that high-temperature bonding warps a one-sided particle array and destroys leveling. The natural, known engineering answer is force symmetry — put a matched particle distribution on the opposite face so thermal-shrinkage and pressure forces cancel — which is precisely what Chou's mirror arrangement and Puthanangady's two-sided conditioner each show, and what the '862's claim recites ("symmetrical forces… precludes substantial warping"). A rigid backplane (Chou) added to a two-sided conditioner (Puthanangady) also gives the handling/stiffness that the '862's rigid-support claims recite. This is a combination of known elements yielding predictable results (KSR), and it is a design solution to a known problem, not an unpredictable one.

Counterargument I must flag (raised by the Patent Owner in the sibling '699 proceeding): (i) Puthanangady's middle substrate is already rigid enough, so a Chou backplane is unnecessary; (ii) attaching a backplane to one face would destroy the stated two-working-surface advantage — i.e., a teaching-away argument; and (iii) method claims of the type "disposing → bonding → coupling" require a step order that Chou + Puthanangady allegedly reverses. Those arguments were persuasive enough to matter in the '699 case. On the '862, the corresponding exposure is real for the sequence-limited method claims, but weaker for apparatus/two-monolayer claims where symmetry — not order of steps — does the work.

Combination D — any of the above + art on low-temperature fixation (organic matrix / electrodeposition / sintering)

The '862 claims encompass dressers where the second monolayer is secured by an organic matrix, electrodeposition, or sintering — bonding routes expressly disclosed in the cited CMP conditioner art. Because high-heat brazing is the admitted cause of loss of leveling, a POSITA seeking to preserve a leveled tip array has a strong, articulated reason to select a low-thermal-budget bonding route; this is a predictable substitution of one known bonding technique for another with the known trade-off identified in the art.

4. Recurring § 103 rationales that carry each claim set

5. Corroboration and current posture

An aggregated PTAB tracker lists IPR2024‑00534 as FWD issued Sept. 17, 2025, outcome "Unpatentable" for the challenged claims, with the proceeding appealed as **CAFC 26‑1528 (Sung v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.))**. Two caveats I must state plainly: (1) the "Unpatentable" characterization comes from the tracker, not the FWD document itself, which I did not retrieve; and (2) because the FWD is on appeal, it is not final. Separately, CAFC 26‑1197 (appeal from IPR2024‑00533, the '270 patent) was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on March 9, 2026, which a press report characterizes as settlement. None of that changes the merits analysis, but a merits-level § 103 finding against claims 1–20 of the '862 would corroborate the combinations above.

6. Where the obviousness case is weakest (honest limits)

1. No record evidence of criticality either way — the patent never asserts that 10 µm or 20 µm is a critical threshold, but neither do the references explain why those exact values matter, so Petitioner's case rests on range optimization rather than a pinpoint disclosure of every endpoint.
2. "SungICPt" is unidentified in what I retrieved; without knowing what it discloses, Ground 2's sufficiency for claims 5–10 cannot be independently evaluated.
3. Puthanangady/An document numbers are unverified, and their application to the '862 (as opposed to the '699) needs confirmation.
4. Step-order arguments remain viable against the two-stage manufacturing method claims, as the sibling '699 record shows.
5. Claim text is not in the supplied material — the mapping above is keyed to the claim structure in the earlier summary section of this analysis, and should be re-verified against the printed claims before being relied on.

Bottom line: On the record available, the strongest § 103 case is Sung '026 (US 2007/0060026 A1) in view of Tsai, with the motivation supplied by Tsai's own criticism of un-leveled tips and Sung '026's disclosed tip-variation and cutting-depth ranges; that combination reads on claims 1–6, 9–12, and 20 largely by range optimization from an identical-purpose disclosure. The Chou + Puthanangady (+An) combination covers the two-monolayer/anti-warpage claims on a force-symmetry rationale, subject to a credible teaching-away and step-order defense. The PTAB's reported "Unpatentable" outcome in IPR2024‑00534, if accurate, is consistent with this assessment — but it is on appeal and the FWD itself was not in my retrieval set.