Home PSI‘s Action for Patent Infringement against iST, Case Rejected by the Supreme Court and Officially Concluded

PSI‘s Action for Patent Infringement against iST, Case Rejected by the Supreme Court and Officially Concluded

Home PSI‘s Action for Patent Infringement against iST, Case Rejected by the Supreme Court and Officially Concluded

PSI‘s Action for Patent Infringement against iST, Case Rejected by the Supreme Court and Officially Concluded

by yuting

Issued Date: 2021/10/13PSI’s Patent
Issued By: iST

Regarding Phoenix Silicon International Corporation’s (“PSI”) appeal for Patent Infringement against Integrated Service Technology (“iST”), after the adjudication of the first and the second instance of Intellectual Property Court (“IPC”) that PSI’s patent no. I588880 is invalid, PSI appealed to the Supreme Court for the third time and the court again invalidated PSI’s patent no. I588880 and officially concluded this case.

In 2019, PSI appealed to the IPC alleging that iST infringed upon the R.O.C. Invention patent no. I588880. In June, 2020, the first instance judgment of court invalidated PSI’s patent. As PSI dissatisfied with the decision rendered, and filed a second appeal. In early June this year, the second instance of court ruled that the wafer thinning process patent no. I588880 of PSI was invalid again.

However, PSI still dissatisfied with the adjudication of the second instance, and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that PSI did not file the appeal according to law, so immediately rejected PSI’s appeal of the third instance by Civil Judgment 110 Tai-Shang-Tzu 2700, meanwhile invalidating the wafer thinning process patent no. I588880 of PSI and concluded the case. According to law, the appellant should bear the costs of the third instance, including the attorney’s fees. Therefore, iST will request PSI to pay the third-instance attorney’s fees in accordance with the law.

In the main text of original adjudication, the Judge of Supreme Court found that PSI did not file the appeal according to law, so dismissed PSI’s appeal. At the same time, the Judge also accepted the judgment of the second instance, that the patent no. I588880 of PSI belongs to the easy combination of common knowledge; even PSI itself admitted in the second court that its wafer thinning process was a learned technique, meaning that the steps of the wafer thinning process were known to the industry. Since this process is not progressive, the court ruled that the patent was invalid. At this point, the case was officially concluded and PSI cannot appeal further.

This case lasted two years and one month from September 2019, when PSI filed this patent first-instance lawsuit to the IPC to October 2021, when the Supreme Court rejected PSI’s third-instance appeal, and the whole case was concluded. iST sincerely appreciates the result and the justice is served. iST also would like to further announce that we will not tolerate any market manipulation of anyone else by arbitrary accusation.

PSI’s Patent

About Integrated Service Technology

Founded in 1994, iST began its business from IC circuit debugging and modification and gradually expanded its scope of operations, including Failure Analysis, Reliability Verification, Material Analysis, Automotive Electronic Verification Platforms and Signal Integrity Testing Services. iST has offered full-scope verification and analysis services to the IC engineering industry, its customers cover the whole spectrum of the electronics industry from IC design to end products.

In response to rising Cloud Intelligence, Internet of Things (IoT) and Internet of Vehicles (IoV), iST not only focuses on its core services but is also expanding its service offerings based on international trends, such as automotive electronic verification platforms, signal integrity testing services.http://www.istgroup.com