Arigna Technology Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Infringement action filed 10 Feb 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 1 May 2023, with US7183835B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7183835B2
- Application no.
- US11/023590
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00151
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 10 Feb 2022 – 1 May 2023
- Duration
- 445 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Semiconductor device which realizes a short-circuit protection function without shunt resistor, and semiconductor device module
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Semiconductor device which realizes a short-circuit protection function without shunt resistor, and semiconductor device module
A control output signal is supplied to a gate electrode of an insulated gate transistor from a control signal output terminal of a control device, however, with regard to the insulated gate transistor, a control output signal is also influenced when that transistor is short-circuited, and a signal waveform different from that in a normal operating state occurs. The short-circuit is detected by monitoring the control output signal of the insulated gate transistor, and in case of the short-circuit, the short-circuit protection of the insulated gate transistor is performed by forcing the control device to stop that control output signal.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 27 Feb 2007
- Earliest priority
- 6 Jan 2004
- Est. expiry
- 4 May 2025
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2023-00453 · Patentability · filed by APPLE INC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SAKATA, HIROSHI · TANAKA, TOMOFUMI
- Classification
- H03K17/0812H10D84/00G11C7/00G11C11/4067H02H7/08H02M1/00H02M7/537H10D84/03
- Prosecution counsel
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP
- Examiner
- CALLAHAN, TIMOTHY P.
Parties of record
Arigna Technology Limited
- Core tech
- H03K17/0812H10D84/00G11C7/00G11C11/4067
- Counsel
- Amy V. Hall · Andres Healy · Bryce T. Barcelo · Charles L. Ainsworth · John E. Schiltz · Kemper P. Diehl · Matthew R. Berry · Robert Christopher Bunt
- Firm
- Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC, Susman Godfrey LLP
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Marissa Ducca
- Firm
- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
- Also named
- Microsoft Corporation · Google, LLC · Samsung Electronics America, Inc. · Lenovo Group, Ltd. · TCL Communication, Ltd. · TCL Electronics Holdings, Ltd. · OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. · Apple, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Amy V. Hall | Arigna Technology Limited | Plaintiff |
| Andres Healy | Arigna Technology Limited | Plaintiff |
| Bryce T. Barcelo | Arigna Technology Limited | Plaintiff |
| Charles L. Ainsworth | Arigna Technology Limited | Plaintiff |
| John E. Schiltz | Arigna Technology Limited | Plaintiff |
| Kemper P. Diehl | Arigna Technology Limited | Plaintiff |
| Matthew R. Berry | Arigna Technology Limited | Plaintiff |
| Robert Christopher Bunt | Arigna Technology Limited | Plaintiff |
| Marissa Ducca | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On this day, Plaintiff Arigna Technology Limited (“Arigna”) and Defendants TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. and TCL Communication Ltd. (collectively, “TCL” or “Defendants”) announced to the Court that they have settled all claims for relief asserted in this case. The Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that their request for dismissal should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims herein are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same. This is a final judgment”
Case 6:22-cv-00151 · W.D. Tex. · closed 1 May 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 6:22-cv-00151?
6:22-cv-00151 is a patent infringement action brought by Arigna Technology Limited against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 10 Feb 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 1 May 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-00151?
US7183835B2 (“Semiconductor device which realizes a short-circuit protection function without shunt resistor, and semiconductor device module”), assigned to ARIGNA TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, currently inactive. The record also lists Semiconductor device which realizes a short-circuit protection function without shunt resistor, and semiconductor device module.
How was case 6:22-cv-00151 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “On this day, Plaintiff Arigna Technology Limited (“Arigna”) and Defendants TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. and TCL Communication Ltd. (collectively, “TCL” or “Defendants”) announced to the Court that they have settled all claims for relief asserted in this case. The Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that their request for dismissal should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims herein are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same. This is a final judgme
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 6:22-cv-00151 take?
445 calendar days, from filing on 10 Feb 2022 to closure on 1 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00151?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Amy V. Hall, Andres Healy, Bryce T. Barcelo, Charles L. Ainsworth, John E. Schiltz, Kemper P. Diehl, Matthew R. Berry and Robert Christopher Bunt are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Arigna Technology. Marissa Ducca appears for defendant Samsung Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00151 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.