VLSI Technology v. Intel: Semiconductor Patent Battle Ends in Split Verdict
Que souhaitez-vous faire ensuite ?
Choisissez votre parcours en fonction de vos besoins actuels :
📋 Résumé de l'affaire
| Nom de l'affaire | VLSI Technology, LLC v. Intel Corporation |
| Numéro de dossier | 5:17-cv-05671 (N.D. Cal.) |
| Tribunal | Tribunal fédéral de première instance pour le district nord de Californie |
| Durée | Oct 2017 – Mar 2024 6 years 5 months |
| Résultat | Split Verdict — Mixed Judgment |
| Brevets en cause | |
| Produits incriminés | Intel Core i3, i5, i7, Xeon, Atom Processors, Stratix 10 FPGAs, EMIB, Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 |
Aperçu du dossier
Les parties
⚖️ Demandeur
Non-practicing entity (NPE) that acquired a portfolio of semiconductor-related patents, many originating from legacy Freescale Semiconductor intellectual property.
🛡️ Défendeur
World’s largest semiconductor manufacturer by revenue and the designer of the accused microprocessor products at issue.
Brevets en cause
This landmark case involved eight patents covering core aspects of modern processor architecture — areas directly relevant to competitive performance in Intel’s product lines.
- • US7706207B2 — Memory access and interconnect technologies
- • US8004922B2 — Semiconductor power/performance optimization (ultimately invalidated)
- • US8020014B2 — Process integration for semiconductor devices
- • US7268588B2 — Transistor and circuit design
- • US7675806B2 — Semiconductor architecture
- • US7709303B2 — Chip design methodology
- • US8268672B2 — Advanced manufacturing processes
- • US8566836B2 — Memory/storage controller technology (non-infringed)
Designing a new microprocessor or chip?
Ensure your semiconductor designs are clear of infringement risk before launch.
Le verdict et l'analyse juridique
Résultat
The court entered a mixed judgment on March 29, 2024. Specifically, in favor of Intel, VLSI’s infringement counts for US8004922 and US8566836 were dismissed, and US8004922 was declared invalid. Simultaneously, Intel’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of license was dismissed without prejudice, directing Intel to refile in the proper forum.
Principales questions juridiques
The court’s summary judgment rulings drove the final disposition. The invalidation of US8,004,922 underscored the continuing viability of validity challenges on technical grounds. The non-infringement finding on US8,566,836 likely resulted from narrow claim construction. Intel’s failed license defense, dismissed on procedural grounds, reveals a crucial strategic dynamic as it leaves this defense live for potential future proceedings.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) & Risk Management
This case highlights critical IP risks in semiconductor design and manufacturing. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand Semiconductor IP Risks
Learn about the specific risks and implications for semiconductor IP from this litigation.
- View all 8 patents in this case (and related family members)
- Découvrez quelles entreprises sont les plus actives dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle liée aux semi-conducteurs.
- Understand claim construction patterns for microprocessors
🔍 Vérifier les risques liés à mon produit
Effectuez une analyse FTO complète pour votre propre technologie ou produit.
- Saisissez la description de votre produit ou ses caractéristiques techniques.
- L'IA identifie les brevets susceptibles de constituer un obstacle
- Obtenir un rapport d'évaluation des risques exploitable
Zone à haut risque
Microprocessor Architecture, Power Management, Memory Control
8 brevets invoqués
In core processor design
Validity Risks Present
US8004922 invalidated at summary judgment
✅ Points clés à retenir
Summary judgment on invalidity (clear-and-convincing standard) remains achievable in semiconductor cases with strong prior art.
Rechercher la jurisprudence connexe →License defenses must be asserted in proper forum — procedural missteps can delay, not eliminate, the defense.
Explorer les précédents →Multi-patent NPE assertions create simultaneous validity exposure across the portfolio.
Analyser les portefeuilles NPE →Foire aux questions
Eight U.S. patents covering semiconductor architecture, power management, memory control, and manufacturing processes, including US7706207, US8004922, US8020014, US7268588, US7675806, US7709303, US8268672, and US8566836.
The court entered summary judgment findings: US8004922 was found invalid, US8566836 was found not infringed, and Intel’s license counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice for improper forum.
It reinforces the viability of invalidity and non-infringement defenses at summary judgment in complex chip cases, while leaving Intel’s license defense unresolved — a key variable for VLSI’s broader assertion campaign.
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.
Références
- PACER Case 5:17-cv-05671
- USPTO Patent Search for US8004922
- Related: VLSI v. Intel, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-57
- PatSnap — Solutions de veille en matière de propriété intellectuelle pour les cabinets d'avocats
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.