MOSAID Technologies vs. Intel: Semiconductor Patent Case Transferred to Oregon

📄 Vollständigen Bericht anzeigen 📥 Als PDF exportieren 🔗 Teilen ⭐ Speichern

📋 Fallzusammenfassung

FallbezeichnungMOSAID Technologies, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
Fallnummer1:25-cv-00677 (WDTX), 3:26-cv-246 (D. Oregon)
GerichtWestern District of Texas (transferred from) to District of Oregon
DauerMay 6, 2025 – Feb 3, 2026 273 days
ErgebnisTransferred — Litigation Ongoing
Streitige Patente
Beschuldigte ProdukteIntel’s 10nm, Intel 4, Intel 7, Intel 3, FinFET Low Power (22FFL), and Intel 16 process nodes

Fallübersicht

Die Parteien

⚖️ Kläger

MOSAID Technologies, Inc. is a well-established patent licensing and assertion entity with a substantial portfolio concentrated in semiconductor memory and logic technologies.

🛡️ Beklagter

Intel Corporation is one of the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturers. Its advanced process nodes represent billions of dollars in R&D investment.

Die streitigen Patente

MOSAID asserted 11 U.S. patents spanning semiconductor device architecture and fabrication. These patents generally cover transistor structures, semiconductor device configurations, and fabrication processes directly implicated by Intel’s FinFET-based manufacturing.

🔍

Working on advanced semiconductor nodes?

Check if your manufacturing process might infringe these or related patents before launch.

FTO-Prüfung durchführen →

Zeitplan des Rechtsstreits und rechtliche Analyse

Zeitplan des Rechtsstreits und Verfahrensgeschichte

MOSAID filed suit on May 6, 2025, in the Western District of Texas — a calculated choice. The WDTX, under Chief Judge Alan D. Albright, has been among the nation’s most active venues for patent litigation.

However, after 273 days — on February 3, 2026 — the case was formally transferred, with the docket officially received by the District of Oregon on February 5, 2026, as Case No. 3:26-cv-246. Judge Alan D. Albright, who presided during the WDTX phase, is one of the most prominent patent judges in the country — his docket management practices and claim construction approaches are closely followed by the patent bar. The case’s transfer out of his court is itself a strategically significant event worth monitoring.

Ergebnis

The Western District of Texas closed the case on February 3, 2026, with the formal basis of termination being the transfer to the District of Oregon (Case No. 3:26-cv-246). No final judgment on the merits, damages award, or injunctive relief was issued at this stage. The substantive infringement claims — covering 11 patents and six Intel process node families — remain actively pending before the Oregon court.

Veranstaltungsort-Transfer-Analyse

The transfer from WDTX to Oregon is the defining legal event of this case’s first phase. Intel’s primary operations and relevant R&D activities are headquartered in Santa Clara, California, with significant engineering presence in Oregon (notably, Intel’s Hillsboro campus is one of its largest fabrication and engineering sites). Under In re Apple and subsequent Federal Circuit venue jurisprudence, defendants have increasingly succeeded in transferring cases away from WDTX when key witnesses and evidence are located elsewhere.

For MOSAID, the WDTX filing was a deliberate venue strategy — one that has become more difficult to sustain post-In re Volkswagen and related transfer decisions that strengthened defendants’ ability to invoke § 1404(a). The transfer to Oregon places the case in a venue where Intel has substantial local presence, potentially shifting procedural dynamics in Intel’s favor.

Rechtliche Bedeutung

This case exemplifies the ongoing tension between patent assertion entities and venue selection strategy following the Federal Circuit’s tightening of WDTX transfer standards. The 273-day WDTX tenure — encompassing likely early motions, scheduling orders, and transfer briefing — consumed significant litigation resources without reaching merits adjudication.

With 11 patents at issue, claim construction proceedings in Oregon will be pivotal. The patents cover semiconductor structural and process technologies, meaning construction of terms like “transistor channel region,” “gate dielectric,” or “fin structure” could determine infringement across Intel’s entire advanced node lineup simultaneously.

Strategische Erkenntnisse

For Patent Holders: MOSAID’s multi-patent, multi-product assertion strategy is high-leverage but venue-vulnerable. Patent holders targeting large semiconductor defendants should conduct rigorous § 1404(a) analysis before filing in WDTX, particularly when defendants have established engineering operations in other districts.

For Accused Infringers: Intel’s successful transfer (if transfer was defendant-initiated) demonstrates the ongoing value of venue challenges as a defensive tool. Early investment in transfer motions can reset the litigation dynamic and move cases to more favorable judicial environments.

💡

Auswirkungen auf die Branche und den Wettbewerb

The MOSAID v. Intel dispute reflects a broader pattern of **semiconductor process node patent enforcement** that R&D and legal teams across the chip industry must monitor.

📋 MOSAID’s Portfolio Approach

MOSAID’s assertion of patents spanning multiple node generations (22FFL through Intel 3) suggests a portfolio theory of infringement: that core structural innovations persist across generational process improvements.

  • View all 11 asserted patents in detail
  • Analyze claim construction strategies
  • Understand portfolio assertion patterns
📊 Patentportfolio anzeigen
⚠️
Gebiete mit hohem Risiko

FinFET structures, Gate-All-Around (GAA) transistors, interconnect architectures

📋
11 Patents at Issue

Covering multiple Intel process node generations

Herausforderungen hinsichtlich der Veranstaltungsorte

Crucial defensive tool for large defendants

✅ Wichtigste Erkenntnisse

Für Patentanwälte

Venue selection in WDTX remains viable but requires rigorous § 1404(a) risk analysis when defendants have multi-state engineering operations.

Verwandte Rechtsprechung suchen →

Multi-patent assertions against manufacturing processes require coordinated claim construction strategies.

Entdecken Sie die Analyse von Anspruchsauslegungen →

Transfer to defendant-friendly venues can reset case dynamics significantly.

Analyze venue transfer trends →
Für IP-Fachleute

MOSAID’s portfolio approach — 11 patents across six product lines — reflects modern PAE assertion strategy targeting process-level technology.

PAE-Aktivität überwachen →

Monitor Case No. 3:26-cv-246 (D. Oregon) for claim construction orders with industry-wide implications.

Aktuelles zu Rechtsstreitigkeiten verfolgen →
Für Führungskräfte im Bereich Forschung und Entwicklung

Advanced node FTO analysis must extend beyond product patents to fabrication process and transistor structure IP.

FTO-Analyse für mein Produkt starten →

Enterprise-level patent risk management should include PAE portfolio monitoring in semiconductor domains.

Build IP risk dashboards →

Häufig gestellte Fragen

Sind Sie bereit, Ihre Patentstrategie zu stärken?

Schließen Sie sich den über 18.000 Fachleuten aus dem Bereich des geistigen Eigentums an, die PatSnap Eureka nutzen, um mit KI-gestützter Präzision Recherchen zum Stand der Technik durchzuführen, Patentanmeldungen zu erstellen und Wettbewerbslandschaften zu analysieren.

PatSnap-Team für geistiges Eigentum

Patentrecherche und Wettbewerbsbeobachtung · PatSnap

Diese Analyse wurde vom PatSnap IP Intelligence Team erstellt – einer Gruppe aus Patentanalysten, IP-Strategen und Datenwissenschaftlern, die täglich mit der globalen Patentdatenbank von PatSnap arbeiten, die über 2 Milliarden strukturierte Datenpunkte aus Patenten, Prozessakten, wissenschaftlicher Literatur und behördlichen Einreichungen umfasst.

Das Team ist darauf spezialisiert, wegweisende Gerichtsurteile zu verfolgen, komplexe Gerichtsentscheidungen in umsetzbare Strategien zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums zu übersetzen und die Auswirkungen auf die Wettbewerbsanalyse für Forschungs- und Entwicklungs- sowie Rechtsabteilungen zu ermitteln. Alle Fallanalysen stützen sich auf Primärquellen: offizielle Gerichtsakten, beim USPTO eingereichte Unterlagen und Urteile des Federal Circuit.

📊 Über 2 Milliarden Patentdatenpunkte 🌍 Über 120 Länder abgedeckt 🏢 Über 18.000 Kunden weltweit ⚖️ Globale Rechtsstreitdatenbank 🔍 Aus Primärquellen verifiziert

Verwandte Ressourcen

  1. USPTO Patent Full-Text Database — Search MOSAID patent numbers
  2. PACER Case Locator — Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00677 (WDTX) and 3:26-cv-246 (D. Oregon)
  3. Federal Circuit decisions on WDTX venue transfer standards — In re Apple, In re Volkswagen

Dieser Artikel dient ausschließlich zu Informationszwecken und stellt keine Rechtsberatung dar. Alle Angaben zu den Fällen stammen aus öffentlich zugänglichen Gerichtsakten. Informationen zu den Funktionen der Plattform finden Sie auf PatSnap.

⚖️ Haftungsausschluss: Dieser Artikel dient ausschließlich zu Informationszwecken und stellt keine Rechtsberatung dar. Die dargestellte Analyse spiegelt öffentlich zugängliche Fallinformationen und allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze wider. Für spezifische Beratung zu Patentstreitigkeiten, FTO-Analysen oder IP-Strategien wenden Sie sich bitte an einen qualifizierten Patentanwalt.