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

📄 Voir le rapport complet 📥 Exporter au format PDF 🔗 Partager ⭐ Enregistrer

📋 Résumé de l'affaire

Nom de l'affaireMOSAID Technologies, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
Numéro de dossier1:25-cv-00677 (WDTX), 3:26-cv-246 (D. Oregon)
TribunalWestern District of Texas (transferred from) to District of Oregon
DuréeMay 6, 2025 – Feb 3, 2026 273 days
RésultatTransferred — Litigation Ongoing
Brevets en cause
Produits incriminésIntel’s 10nm, Intel 4, Intel 7, Intel 3, FinFET Low Power (22FFL), and Intel 16 process nodes

Aperçu du dossier

Les parties

⚖️ Demandeur

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

🛡️ Défendeur

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

Les brevets en cause

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.

Lancer la vérification FTO →

Chronologie du litige et analyse juridique

Chronologie du litige et historique de la procédure

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.

Résultat

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.

Analyse du transfert de lieu

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.

Signification juridique

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.

Points stratégiques à retenir

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.

💡

Implications pour l'industrie et la concurrence

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
📊 Consulter le portefeuille de brevets
⚠️
Zones à haut risque

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

📋
11 Patents at Issue

Covering multiple Intel process node generations

Les défis liés aux lieux

Crucial defensive tool for large defendants

✅ Points clés à retenir

Pour les avocats spécialisés en brevets

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

Rechercher la jurisprudence connexe →

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

Découvrez l'analyse de l'interprétation des revendications →

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

Analyze venue transfer trends →
Pour les professionnels de la propriété intellectuelle

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

Suivre l'activité PAE →

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

Suivre l'évolution des litiges →
Pour les responsables R&D

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

Lancer l'analyse FTO pour mon produit →

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

Build IP risk dashboards →

Foire aux questions

Prêt à renforcer votre stratégie en matière de brevets ?

Rejoignez plus de 18 000 professionnels de la propriété intellectuelle qui utilisent PatSnap Eureka pour effectuer des recherches d'antériorité, rédiger des brevets et analyser le paysage concurrentiel avec une précision optimisée par l'IA.

Équipe PatSnap IP Intelligence

Recherche en matière de brevets et veille concurrentielle · PatSnap

Cette analyse a été réalisée par l'équipe PatSnap IP Intelligence, composée d'analystes en brevets, de stratèges en propriété intellectuelle et de scientifiques des données qui travaillent quotidiennement avec la base de données mondiale de PatSnap, qui regroupe plus de 2 milliards de données structurées issues de brevets, de dossiers de litiges, de publications scientifiques et de documents réglementaires.

L'équipe est spécialisée dans le suivi des décisions judiciaires marquantes, la traduction de jugements complexes en stratégies concrètes en matière de propriété intellectuelle, ainsi que l'identification des implications en matière de veille concurrentielle pour les équipes de R&D et les services juridiques. Toutes les analyses de cas s'appuient sur des sources primaires : dossiers judiciaires officiels, dépôts auprès de l'USPTO et arrêts de la Cour d'appel fédérale.

📊 Plus de 2 milliards de données sur les brevets 🌍 Plus de 120 pays couverts 🏢 Plus de 18 000 clients dans le monde ⚖️ Base de données mondiale sur les litiges 🔍 Sources primaires vérifiées

Ressources connexes

  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

Cet article est publié à titre purement informatif et ne constitue en aucun cas un avis juridique. Toutes les informations relatives aux affaires sont tirées de dossiers judiciaires accessibles au public. Pour en savoir plus sur les fonctionnalités de la plateforme, rendez-vous sur PatSnap.

⚖️ Avertissement : cet article est fourni à titre informatif uniquement et ne constitue pas un avis juridique. L'analyse présentée reflète les informations publiques disponibles sur les affaires et les principes juridiques généraux. Pour obtenir des conseils spécifiques concernant les litiges en matière de brevets, l'analyse FTO ou la stratégie en matière de propriété intellectuelle, veuillez consulter un avocat spécialisé en brevets.