ACQIS LLC v. ASUSTeK: $20M jury verdict for PCIe interface patent infringement
Patent assertion entity ACQIS LLC sued ASUSTeK Computer across a broad ASUS product portfolio — desktops, laptops, motherboards, and servers — asserting nine patents covering PCIe serial bus interface technology. After a four-day trial before Judge Alan Albright in the Western District of Texas, the jury awarded ACQIS $17,970,582 in damages, rising to over $20M with prejudgment interest.
Four-year WDTX battle ends in $20M PCIe interface verdict for ACQIS
ACQIS LLC filed suit against ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. in the Western District of Texas on October 15, 2020, asserting nine patents directed to PCIe serial bus interface technology across a wide range of ASUS products, including ZenAiO and VivoAiO desktops, ZenBook and ROG laptops, ROG and Prime motherboards, and TS/RS-series servers. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a venue synonymous with patent-holder-friendly case management and high trial rates.
The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial commencing March 18, 2024. The jury returned a unanimous verdict on March 22, 2024, finding direct infringement of Claims 10 and 13 of US9529768 and Claim 19 of US8756359 by ASGL and ACI. Critically, the jury pierced the corporate veil, holding ASUSTeK liable for the acts of its subsidiaries ASGL and ACI under agency and alter ego theories. Final judgment, entered January 15, 2025, totalled $20,079,259 including prejudgment interest through June 30, 2024, with additional supplemental interest through the judgment date, post-judgment interest, and costs.
The case’s four-plus-year duration reflects the complexity of nine-patent, multi-product litigation compounded by corporate structure disputes. The jury’s rejection of willful infringement and induced infringement claims, while still delivering substantial compensatory damages, suggests a nuanced finding: infringement was real but not egregious. The alter ego holding against ASUSTeK is strategically significant — the public record does not reveal the specific royalty base or per-unit rate underpinning the $17.97M figure, leaving licensing leverage implications open to interpretation.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 1553 days
1,553 days — over 4 years from filing to final judgment, typical for complex multi-patent WDTX cases
Jury verdict for ACQIS: what the $20M judgment means for both parties
Alter ego liability: how ASUSTeK was held responsible
The jury found that ASUSTeK, ASGL, and ACI operated as a unified enterprise under agency and alter ego principles — meaning ASUSTeK had no separate corporate shield against its subsidiaries’ infringement. This is a fact-intensive finding that typically requires evidence of shared management, commingled finances, or lack of independent decision-making. The result: ASUSTeK bears the full $20M+ damages award despite the infringing acts being attributed to ASGL and ACI.
Corporate veil piercedACQIS secures $20M+ and cost award across ASUS product lines
ACQIS achieved a plaintiff verdict on its core PCIe interface patents, with the jury upholding validity against written description and enablement challenges. The damages award of $17,970,582, supplemented by $2,108,677 in prejudgment interest and ongoing post-judgment interest, represents a meaningful licensing benchmark. Costs are also recoverable, adding further financial exposure for ASUSTeK. The verdict strengthens ACQIS’s position in any parallel or follow-on licensing discussions with other PCIe device manufacturers.
Full compensatory awardASUSTeK avoids willfulness finding but faces $20M+ liability
ASUSTeK and ASGL were found not to have willfully infringed and not to have induced infringement — outcomes that limit ACQIS’s ability to seek enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and eliminate inducement liability exposure. However, the alter ego finding negated the corporate separation argument that might otherwise have capped ASUSTeK’s direct exposure. ASUSTeK was placed on actual notice of the asserted patents as of May 15, 2018, a finding that anchors the damages calculation and any appeal arguments.
No willfulness, but full damagesPCIe interface patents validated: sector-wide licensing risk elevated
The jury’s validity findings — rejecting challenges on written description and enablement grounds — leave the ‘768 and ‘359 patents enforceable and formidable. Any company integrating PCIe serial bus interface technology in desktops, laptops, motherboards, or servers should treat this verdict as a signal that ACQIS’s portfolio has been tested and has held. The broad product scope here, spanning consumer through enterprise hardware, suggests these patents cover foundational interface architecture rather than a narrow implementation.
Enforceable PCIe portfolioFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ACQIS, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9529768 and US8756359 covering PCIe serial bus interfaceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Asustek Computer, Inc. | Company | ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. — Taiwanese multinational; maker of ASUS desktops, laptops, motherboards, and serversSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Case L. Collard | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elliot J. Hales | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Forrest Tahdooahnippah | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory S. Tamkin | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Logan James Drew | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Madeline Hepler | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark A. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael D. Stinson | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert J.M. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan Meyer | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stefan Szpajda | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen Burbank | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Owen Young , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsey & Whitney LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Folio Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Robins Kaplan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chris R. Schmidt | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric A. Buresh | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lydia C. Raw | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark C. Lang | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michelle L. Marriott | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nickolas R. Apel | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert H. Sloss | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stacy Park | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie Rene’ Barnes | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Z. Victor Sai | Attorney | Counsel for Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Erise, IP PA | Law Firm | Representing Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Plunk Smith, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP | Law Firm | Representing Asustek Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The judgment reflects a carefully segmented verdict: direct infringement is confirmed at the subsidiary level (ASGL and ACI), with liability flowing to ASUSTeK through alter ego and agency rather than its own infringing acts. The explicit rejection of inducement and willfulness narrows ACQIS’s post-verdict options — no treble damages motion is viable — but the $17.97M compensatory figure plus prejudgment interest creates a clean, enforceable monetary judgment. The validity findings, upholding both patents against written description and enablement attacks, remove a significant arrow from any defendant’s quiver on appeal.
US9529768 & US8756359 — PCIe serial bus interface technology in computing hardware
US9529768 and US8756359 are directed to PCIe (Peripheral Component Interconnect Express) serial bus interface technology — the high-speed point-to-point communication architecture that connects processors, memory, and peripheral devices in modern computing hardware. These patents, along with seven additional ACQIS patents originally asserted in this case, cover methods and systems for implementing serial bus communication protocols in computing modules including desktops, laptops, motherboards, and servers. The application lineage traces to the early-to-mid 2010s, situating these patents at a period of rapid PCIe adoption across enterprise and consumer hardware.
PCIe interface patents occupy a strategically exposed position in the semiconductor and hardware ecosystem because PCIe is a foundational, effectively mandatory standard in modern PCs and servers. Any manufacturer shipping products with PCIe connectivity — which is virtually every PC OEM — is a potential enforcement target. The ACQIS portfolio’s survival through a jury trial on validity grounds, and the broad product scope confirmed here spanning consumer all-in-ones to enterprise workstations, signals that these patents cover architectural implementation choices rather than surface-level design variations. Competitors in the PC, server, and motherboard space should treat this verdict as an active licensing signal.
Should you run an FTO against US9529768 and US8756359?
Any product team shipping desktops, laptops, motherboards, servers, or embedded computing modules with PCIe serial bus interfaces should treat this verdict as a trigger for a formal freedom-to-operate assessment. The jury confirmed direct infringement across a wide ASUS product portfolio, and the patent validity challenge failed on both written description and enablement grounds. If your products integrate PCIe interconnect architecture in ways structurally similar to ASUS’s implementations, your exposure to the ACQIS portfolio may be material — particularly given the notice-based damages window established here.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9529768 and US8756359 against your specific product architecture, identify prosecution history estoppel boundaries, and surface any relevant prior art that was not before the jury. Eureka can also flag ACQIS’s full nine-patent portfolio and track any continuation or reissue applications that may extend enforcement risk beyond the patents adjudicated in this case — giving your IP and engineering teams an evidence-based risk posture before litigation finds you.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8756359B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar PCIe and serial bus interface patent cases in WDTX and beyond
Cases involving PCIe serial bus interface patents litigated before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, including other ACQIS enforcement actions against PC hardware OEMs.
What this case signals for the PCIe interface and PC hardware IP landscape
A $20M jury verdict after nine patents and four years of WDTX litigation sets a meaningful benchmark for serial bus interface licensing disputes.
Alter ego findings can eliminate subsidiary shielding in multi-entity tech groups
The jury’s piercing of the corporate veil between ASUSTeK, ASGL, and ACI is a practical warning for multinational hardware vendors who route product sales through subsidiary entities. Where subsidiaries lack genuine operational independence, courts can and will attribute infringement liability to the parent. IP and legal teams at hardware OEMs should audit subsidiary structures proactively.
Validity survived trial: written description and enablement defences failed
ASUSTeK mounted invalidity challenges on written description and enablement — two of the most technically demanding invalidity grounds. The jury rejected both, confirming that ACQIS’s PCIe patents are robustly drafted and disclosure-supported. For competitors, this means IPR or post-grant review may represent the more viable invalidity path than district court invalidity defences alone.
ACQIS v Asustek — key questions answered
The jury returned a unanimous verdict on March 22, 2024 finding that ASGL and ACI directly infringed Claims 10 and 13 of US9529768 and Claim 19 of US8756359. ASUSTeK was held liable for its subsidiaries’ infringement under alter ego and agency theories. Damages were set at $17,970,582, rising to $20,079,259 with prejudgment interest through June 30, 2024. Willful infringement and inducement were not found.
Nine patents were originally asserted, all directed to PCIe serial bus interface technology covering methods and systems for high-speed serial communication in computing hardware. At trial, the asserted claims were Claims 10 and 13 of US9529768 and Claim 19 of US8756359. The broader portfolio includes reissue and continuation patents covering related serial bus interface architectures across desktops, laptops, motherboards, and servers.
The jury found that ASUSTeK, ASGL, and ACI operated under agency and alter ego relationships — meaning the subsidiaries lacked sufficient independent corporate existence to shield the parent from liability. Under the jury instructions, where subsidiaries have ‘no separate mind, will or existence of their own and are business conduits’ of the parent, the parent may be held personally liable. This finding is fact-intensive and turns on evidence of corporate control, commingled operations, and management overlap.
No. The jury rejected ASUSTeK’s invalidity defences on both written description and enablement grounds, finding the asserted claims of US9529768 and US8756359 valid. This is commercially significant because it means the patents survived a full trial record including presumably expert testimony, and the validity findings form part of the final judgment entered January 15, 2025.
The court’s final judgment confirms that ASUSTeK was on notice of the ‘768 and ‘359 patents as of May 15, 2018. Separately, the jury found that ACQIS provided ASUSTeK with notice of the patents and a specific charge of infringement by a specific product prior to May 12, 2020, but did not provide ASGL with equivalent notice prior to that date. The May 2018 notice date anchors the pre-suit damages calculation and is a key figure for assessing the full damages exposure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.