ALIDOUBLE Inc. v. TSMC — Four BSI Sensor Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice After Settlement
ALIDOUBLE Inc. asserted four patents covering back-side illuminated image sensor technology against TSMC in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting BSI sensors made by ONsemi, Omnivision, and Sony. The parties resolved the dispute privately and jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.
BSI sensor IP dispute between ALIDOUBLE and TSMC ends in settlement
ALIDOUBLE Inc. filed suit against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited on August 4, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted four patents — US9431455B2, US6169319B1, US9356169B2, and US6168965B1 — all relating to back-side illuminated (BSI) CMOS image sensor technology. The accused products included BSI sensors commercialised under the ONsemi, Omnivision, and Sony brands, suggesting TSMC’s foundry role in manufacturing the underlying semiconductor structures.
The case closed on January 16, 2024, when the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss notifying the court that they had ‘resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendant.’ The court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal with prejudice is a significant term: it permanently bars ALIDOUBLE from re-asserting the same four patents against TSMC on the same accused products. Each party was directed to bear its own costs and fees, a common feature of negotiated patent settlements where neither side secures a formal damages award.
The approximately 17-month resolution timeline is notable in the context of EDTX patent litigation, which often extends well beyond two years before trial. The early joint dismissal is consistent with a confidential licensing agreement or covenant-not-to-sue, though the public record is silent on financial terms. TSMC’s deployment of a ten-attorney team from Quinn Emanuel alongside The Dacus Firm — one of the most prominent EDTX local counsel firms — suggests the company treated this as a material litigation risk worth resolving decisively rather than litigating to judgment.
Filing to filing in 530 days
Duration: filed Aug 2022, closed Jan 2024 — approximately 530 days from complaint to dismissal
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ALIDOUBLE Inc. | Company | BSI image sensor patent assertion entity — holder of US9431455B2 and 3 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited | Company | Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited — world’s largest contract chip foundrySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Randall Roeser | Attorney | Counsel for ALIDOUBLE Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew M. Holmes | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gyushik Jang | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Iman Lordgooei | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jodie W. Cheng | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Thomas McKee | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan S. Tse | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jun Zheng | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Daniel Powell | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sean S. Pak | Attorney | Counsel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Chief Judge | Texas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint motion verbatim, confirming the dismissal is consensual rather than adjudicated on the merits. The phrase ‘resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief’ is deliberate settlement language, avoiding any admission of infringement or invalidity. The with-prejudice designation is permanent and bilateral in effect: ALIDOUBLE surrenders its right to refile; TSMC receives litigation certainty. The denial of all pending motions as moot suggests substantive motions — potentially invalidity or claim construction briefing — were pending at the time of resolution, consistent with a settlement driven partly by litigation risk on both sides.
US9431455B2 — Back-Side Illuminated CMOS Image Sensor Fabrication
The four asserted patents cover back-side illuminated (BSI) CMOS image sensor technology — a foundational semiconductor process in which photodiodes are positioned on the back of the silicon wafer to maximise light capture efficiency. US9431455B2 and US9356169B2 reflect later-generation BSI structures, while US6169319B1 and US6168965B1 represent early pioneer claims from 1999 application filings. BSI technology has become the dominant architecture in smartphone and automotive camera sensors, making these patents relevant to a very large volume of manufactured units across the accused product families.
The strategic value of this portfolio lies in its breadth across process generations and its applicability to mass-market BSI sensors from multiple branded vendors. By asserting against TSMC as foundry, ALIDOUBLE implicated sensors sold under ONsemi, Omnivision, and Sony brands in a single action. For competitors and sensor designers, these patents represent a monitored risk in the BSI fabrication process layer — particularly for companies sourcing BSI wafers from TSMC. The settlement, rather than an invalidity ruling, leaves all four patents formally valid and potentially enforceable against other defendants.
Should your BSI sensor product line be cleared against these four patents?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or sourcing BSI CMOS image sensors — particularly those built on TSMC process nodes — should assess freedom-to-operate against US9431455B2, US6169319B1, US9356169B2, and US6168965B1. The accused product list in this case covered sensors from ONsemi, Omnivision, and Sony across automotive, mobile, and surveillance applications. If your product roadmap includes BSI sensor integration, this portfolio warrants claim-by-claim analysis before commercial launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all four patents against your specific sensor architecture, flag prior art that was not adjudicated in this case (no invalidity ruling was issued), and monitor ALIDOUBLE’s future assertion activity. Given that the patents remain valid and the settlement is confidential, proactive claim monitoring is the most cost-effective way to detect any licensing demand before it becomes a litigation filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9431455B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar BSI image sensor patent infringement cases in EDTX and beyond
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the BSI image sensor IP landscape
Four legacy BSI sensor patents extracted a settlement from the world’s largest foundry. The implications extend across the semiconductor supply chain.
Foundries are viable assertion targets for upstream image sensor patents
ALIDOUBLE targeted TSMC as manufacturer rather than suing the OEM sensor brands directly. This upstream strategy is increasingly common: foundry-level infringement theories can reach a single defendant responsible for multiple downstream products simultaneously. Companies in the BSI sensor supply chain — including foundries, IDMs, and fabless designers — should audit exposure under foundry-directed patent assertions.
EDTX remains a credible venue for semiconductor patent assertions against foreign defendants
Chief Judge Gilstrap’s court in the Eastern District of Texas continues to attract semiconductor patent filings. TSMC, a Taiwanese company, engaged a full EDTX-ready defense team rather than seeking transfer, suggesting the venue was accepted as appropriate. Plaintiffs holding semiconductor process patents should note that EDTX remains a commercially viable forum for asserting against global foundries.
ALIDOUBLE v Taiwan — key questions answered
ALIDOUBLE asserted four patents: US9431455B2, US6169319B1, US9356169B2, and US6168965B1 — all covering back-side illuminated (BSI) CMOS image sensor technology. The accused products included ONsemi, Omnivision, and Sony BSI sensors allegedly manufactured by TSMC.
The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars ALIDOUBLE from refiling the same infringement claims against TSMC under the same four patents on the same accused products. It operates as a final resolution on the merits for res judicata purposes. TSMC receives permanent litigation certainty from this specific plaintiff on these patents.
The joint motion to dismiss states the parties ‘resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief,’ language that strongly suggests a private settlement. However, no financial terms were disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing are consistent with a confidential licence or lump-sum royalty payment, but this is not confirmed.
ALIDOUBLE targeted TSMC as the foundry manufacturer of the accused BSI sensors, rather than suing the sensor brand companies directly. This upstream assertion strategy allows a patent holder to reach a single defendant responsible for manufacturing sensors sold under multiple brand names, potentially covering a large volume of accused units in one action.
TSMC was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan across multiple offices (Redwood, San Francisco, New York, and a general entity) plus The Dacus Firm PC as Eastern District of Texas local counsel. Ten named defense attorneys appeared on TSMC’s behalf, reflecting a high-intensity litigation posture against the NPE assertion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.