Advanced Silicon Technologies v. NXP Semiconductors: Dismissed With Prejudice After 727 Days
Advanced Silicon Technologies asserted two semiconductor patents — covering RF transceivers and amplifier technology — against NXP Semiconductors and its affiliates in the Western District of Texas. After 727 days of litigation, both parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
Semiconductor Patent Dispute Ends in Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice
Advanced Silicon Technologies filed suit against NXP Semiconductors N.V., NXP B.V., and NXP USA, Inc. on May 5, 2022, in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint alleged infringement of US8933945B2 and US7804435B2 — patents covering RF transceiver and amplifier technologies — based on NXP products including the i.MX 8 QuadMax Applications Processor, RF transceivers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, power management devices, and sensors.
On May 1, 2024, the court entered a stipulated order dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ joint motion. Dismissal with prejudice means neither party may re-file these same patent claims against the other based on the same accused products or patents — the litigation is permanently concluded. The order further specified that all parties bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a clear-cut victory for either side.
The 727-day duration suggests the dispute progressed through at least the early to middle stages of litigation before the parties reached resolution. The simultaneous filing of a stipulated motion — rather than a unilateral voluntary dismissal — is consistent with a confidential settlement agreement, though the public record discloses no financial terms. What drove NXP and Advanced Silicon Technologies to resolve the matter, and on what commercial terms, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 727 days
727 days — above the median for W.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice ends the litigation permanently
A dismissal with prejudice, entered by joint stipulation, is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Advanced Silicon Technologies cannot re-file these same patent claims against NXP or its affiliates for the same accused products. The stipulated nature of the motion — both parties agreed — distinguishes this from a unilateral withdrawal and is typically consistent with a confidential settlement having been reached.
No re-filing permittedPatent holder forfeits future infringement claims on these patents against NXP
By stipulating to dismissal with prejudice, Advanced Silicon Technologies permanently surrenders its ability to pursue NXP entities on US8933945B2 and US7804435B2 for the accused products. However, the absence of any adverse merits ruling means the patents themselves survive — Advanced Silicon Technologies may still assert them against other parties. Any compensation received remains undisclosed.
Patents intact; NXP claims closedNXP secures permanent closure — no lingering infringement exposure from AST
NXP Semiconductors, NXP B.V., and NXP USA, Inc. all achieve finality: the with-prejudice dismissal bars Advanced Silicon Technologies from reasserting these two patents against any of the three entities for the accused product lines. The own-costs order means NXP absorbs its own legal expenditure, which is typical in settlements where neither party fully prevails. NXP avoids any public finding of infringement.
Clean slate; no infringement findingSemiconductor sector: RF and processor IP enforcement risk persists
The case signals that RF transceiver and mixed-signal semiconductor patents remain active enforcement tools against large-volume chipmakers. Although no merits ruling was issued, the 727-day litigation timeline suggests the claims survived initial procedural challenges. Companies developing or distributing RF transceivers, applications processors, and MCUs should assess exposure to US8933945B2 and US7804435B2, which remain valid and enforceable against third parties.
Patents still enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Advanced Silicon Technologies | Company | Semiconductor IP licensor — holder of US8933945B2 and US7804435B2 (RF transceiver and amplifier patents)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | NXP Semiconductors, N.V. | Individual | Global semiconductor manufacturer; accused products include RF transceivers, i.MX 8 processors, MCUs, and sensorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | NXP, B.V. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | NXP USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alex Ruge | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Angela J. Bubis | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bart A. Starr | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian A. Carpenter | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian S. Boerman | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Briana D. Long | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick A. Fitch | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul S Sung Cha | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert R. Brunelli | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cole Schotz PC | Law Firm | Representing Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Prince Lobel Tye LLP | Law Firm | Representing Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sheridan Ross PC | Law Firm | Representing Advanced Silicon TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Conley Green | Attorney | Counsel for NXP Semiconductors, N.V.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard S. Zembek | Attorney | Counsel for NXP Semiconductors, N.V.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | Law Firm | Representing NXP Semiconductors, N.V.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ stipulated motion verbatim, entering dismissal with prejudice and directing each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The phrasing ‘all parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs’ explicitly forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No infringement finding, validity ruling, or claim construction was issued, leaving the patents legally intact. The joint nature of the stipulation and the with-prejudice designation are the operative legal facts — the underlying commercial terms, if any, are not part of the public record.
US8933945B2 & US7804435B2 — RF Transceiver and Amplifier Semiconductor Patents
US8933945B2 (Application No. US10/459,797) and US7804435B2 (Application No. US11/469,335) cover RF transceiver architectures and amplifier circuit designs relevant to mixed-signal and wireless semiconductor applications. These patents sit at the intersection of analog RF design and digital signal processing — a technically complex and commercially significant area covering chipsets used in mobile, automotive, IoT, and industrial applications. The patents were asserted against NXP’s broad product portfolio including its i.MX 8 QuadMax Applications Processor, RF transceivers, MCUs, MPUs, power management ICs, and sensors.
RF transceiver and amplifier IP is strategically valuable because it underpins a wide range of wireless-enabled semiconductor products sold in high volumes across multiple end markets. NXP is one of the world’s largest automotive and IoT semiconductor suppliers, making its RF and mixed-signal product lines high-value enforcement targets. The survival of these two patents — with no invalidity or non-infringement ruling on the record — means any company shipping competing RF transceiver or amplifier silicon should treat them as active third-party risk until claim scope is independently assessed.
Should your RF semiconductor product line be cleared against US8933945B2 and US7804435B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing RF transceivers, mixed-signal processors, amplifier ICs, MCUs, or power management devices in product categories comparable to NXP’s accused line faces potential exposure to these two patents. Because the case resolved without a validity ruling, the patents carry their full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. R&D teams developing next-generation RF front-end or transceiver architectures should prioritise an FTO assessment before product launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across US8933945B2 and US7804435B2 against your specific product specifications. Eureka identifies prior art gaps, claim limitations most likely to apply to your architecture, and comparable patents in the RF semiconductor space that may affect your design freedom. Run a targeted FTO search before committing to a product roadmap in the transceiver or amplifier IC space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8933945B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar RF Semiconductor Patent Infringement Cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving RF transceiver and mixed-signal semiconductor patents litigated before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, with comparable enforcement profiles.
What this case signals for the semiconductor RF IP landscape
A stipulated with-prejudice dismissal after 727 days in W.D. Texas is rarely a coincidence — it typically signals a negotiated exit.
W.D. Texas remains a high-stakes venue for semiconductor patent enforcement
Judge Albright’s docket continues to attract semiconductor IP disputes. Defendants face early case scheduling pressure and limited venue transfer success. NXP’s decision to settle rather than litigate to judgment is consistent with the strategic calculus many large chipmakers face in this jurisdiction.
Own-costs orders in stipulated dismissals are a settlement signal, not a neutral outcome
When both parties bear their own costs under a with-prejudice stipulation, it strongly suggests a confidential commercial resolution. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement activity should treat this pattern as indicating undisclosed value exchange rather than a clean defendant win.
Advanced v NXP — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means the case is permanently closed and Advanced Silicon Technologies cannot refile these same patent claims (US8933945B2 and US7804435B2) against NXP Semiconductors, NXP B.V., or NXP USA Inc. for the accused products. The dismissal was entered by joint stipulation on May 1, 2024, and no merits ruling was issued.
Advanced Silicon Technologies asserted US8933945B2 (Application No. US10/459,797) and US7804435B2 (Application No. US11/469,335). Both patents cover RF transceiver and amplifier circuit technology. The accused NXP products included RF transceivers, the i.MX 8 QuadMax Applications Processor, MCUs, MPUs, power management devices, and sensors.
There was no merits ruling — the case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation. NXP avoids any finding of infringement, but the own-costs order and stipulated nature of the dismissal are consistent with a confidential settlement rather than a clear defendant victory. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties.
The Western District of Texas, particularly before Judge Alan D. Albright, became a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs due to its historically fast scheduling and plaintiff-friendly procedural posture. The case was filed on May 5, 2022, during a period when W.D. Texas was one of the busiest patent litigation courts in the US.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only bars Advanced Silicon Technologies from pursuing NXP entities on these patents for the accused products. No court has ruled the patents invalid or found them not infringed. Third parties operating in the RF transceiver, amplifier, or mixed-signal semiconductor space remain subject to potential enforcement and should conduct FTO analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.