Bel Power Solutions, Inc. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Infringement action filed 23 Jun 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 6 Apr 2026, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Case no.
- 6:21-cv-00655
- 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
- 23 Jun 2021 – 6 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 1748 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- MP5470 · MP8796B · MP8843 · MP8845 · MP8854 · MP8861 · MP8869 · MPM3695 · MPM54304 · MPM82504 · MPQ8645P · MPQ8875A · MPQ8880 · MPQ8883 · MPQ8886 · mEZDPD1620A\AS · mEZDPD4506A\AS
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
System for controlling and monitoring an array of point-of-load regulators by a host
A power control system comprises a plurality of POL regulators, at least one serial data bus operatively connecting the plurality of POL regulators, and a system controller connected to the serial data bus and adapted to send and receive digital data to and from the plurality of POL regulators. The serial data bus further comprises a first data bus carrying programming and control information between the system controller and the plurality of POL regulators. The serial data bus may also include a second data bus carrying fault management information between the system controller and the plurality of POL regulators. The power control may also include a front-end regulator providing an intermediate voltage to the plurality of POL regulators on an intermediate voltage bus.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 25 Nov 2008
- Est. expiry
- 13 Nov 2022
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019170 · EPR · filed by PERKINS COIE LLP
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CHAPUIS, ALAIN · GUZ, MIKHAIL · ROARK, DENNIS R.
- Classification
- G05F1/59G06F1/26
- Prosecution counsel
- PATTERSON Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Examiner
- STERRETT, JEFFREY L
Voltage set point control scheme
A system and method is provided for determining a voltage output of a programmable power converter based on programming voltage data received from one of a variety of alternate sources. Specifically, in one embodiment of the present invention, a control unit is adapted to monitor a digital data serial interface, a digital data parallel interface, and an analog data interface to determine whether programming voltage data has been received. If programming voltage data has been received, the data is used to determine an output voltage for the programmable power converter. If more than one set of programming voltage data has been received, a determination is made as to which set of data takes priority. The selected set of data is then used to determine an output voltage for the programmable power converter.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 18 Jul 2006
- Est. expiry
- 16 Mar 2024
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019189 · EPR · filed by Perkins Coie LLP – SDO General
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- THAKER, MAHESH NATVERLAL · CHAPUIS, ALAIN
- Classification
- G06F1/00G06F1/26H02J1/08H02MH02M1/00H02M3/157
- Prosecution counsel
- PATTERSON Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Examiner
- DU, THUAN
Also asserted in this case
4 moreThe docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US7049798B2System and method for communicating with a voltage regulator
- US6936999B2System and method for controlling output-timing parameters of power converters
- US6949916B2System and method for controlling a point-of-load regulator
- US7000125B2Method and system for controlling and monitoring an array of point-of-load regulators
Parties of record
Bel Power Solutions, Inc.
- Core tech
- G05F1/59G06F1/26G06F1/00H02J1/08
- Counsel
- Andrew Thompson Gorham · Anthony Moon Pettes · Brandon N. McCarthy · Brian J. Sodikoff · Christopher B. Ferenc · Christopher B. Prescott · James Travis Underwood · Joseph Janusz · Matthew H. Hartzler · Melissa Richards Smith · Nikita Yogeshwarun · Rachel J. Schaub
- Firm
- Gillam & Smith LLP, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Barry Kenneth Shelton · Brian Christopher Nash · Bryan Wilson · Diek O. Van Nort · John D. Esterhay · John P. Schnurer · Kyle R. Canavera · M. Craig Tyler · Miguel J. Bombach · Rachel S. Dolphin · Richard D. Milvenan · Ruohan Li · W. Stella Mao · Yue Li
- Firm
- Foley & Lardner LLP, McGinnis Lochridge LLP, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Perkins Coie LLP, Shelton Coburn LLP
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff Bel Power Solutions, Inc. (“Bel”) and Defendant Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and respectfully request that the Court enter the following order: WHEREAS, Bel filed this action against MPS asserting claims of patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,936,999; 6,949,916; 7,000,125; 7,049,798; 7,080,265; and 7,456,617 (the “Asserted Patents”); WHEREAS, on July 11, 2023, the Court held a pre-trial conference in the above-captioned matter where it resolved pending motions in this case, including granting MPS’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and the Court then memorialized its rulings in the Omnibus Pretrial Conference Order (Dkt. No. 198) which stated the Court planned to issue more detailed orders explaining its analysis; Case 6:21-cv-00655-ADA Document 209 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2024, the Court granted the Joint Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 201) submitted by the Parties pending the final resolution of reexamination proceedings involving the Asserted Patents; WHEREAS, on February 20, 2026, the reexamination proceedings concluded, resulting in the cancellation of the challenged claims of the ’916, ‘125, ‘265, and ‘617 patents and confirmation of the validity of the challenged claims of the ’999 and ’798 patents; WHEREAS, the Parties have reached a resolution of all remaining disputes between them in this action; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s Omnibus Pretrial Conference Order (Dkt. No. 198), the Parties have agreed upon the costs allowed to MPS as the prevailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) in the amount of $50,000.00, and no further adjudication of costs by this Court is necessary; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that this matter should be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Parties as follows: 1. All claims asserted by Plaintiff Bel Power Solutions, Inc. (“Bel”) against Defendant Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”) in this action are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Case 6:21-cv-00655-ADA Document 209 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 5 2. All counterclaims, if any, asserted by MPS against Bel in this action are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The Parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees, and the Parties have separately agreed to the resolution of costs owed to MPS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). No Party shall seek any further award of costs from the Court. 4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction solely for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the Parties’ agreement regarding the payment of costs to MPS, if necessary. 5. All pending motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.”
Case 6:21-cv-00655 · W.D. Tex. · closed 6 April 2026
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 6:21-cv-00655?
6:21-cv-00655 is a patent infringement action brought by Bel Power Solutions, Inc. against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., filed on 23 Jun 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 6 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 6:21-cv-00655?
US7456617B2 (“System for controlling and monitoring an array of point-of-load regulators by a host”), assigned to BEL POWER SOLUTIONS INC., currently inactive; US7080265B2 (“Voltage set point control scheme”), assigned to BEL POWER SOLUTIONS INC., currently inactive; US7049798B2 (“System and method for communicating with a voltage regulator”), assigned to BEL POWER SOLUTIONS INC.; US6936999B2 (“System and method for controlling output-timing parameters of power converters”), assigned to BEL POWER SOLUTIONS INC.; US6949916B2 (“System and method for controlling a point-of-load regulator”), assigned to BEL POWER SOLUTIONS INC.; US7000125B2 (“Method and system for controlling and monitoring an array of point-of-load regulators”), assigned to BEL POWER SOLUTIONS INC.. The record also lists MP5470, MP8796B, MP8843, MP8845, MP8854, MP8861, MP8869, MPM3695, MPM54304, MPM82504, MPQ8645P, MPQ8875A, MPQ8880, MPQ8883, MPQ8886, mEZDPD1620A\AS and mEZDPD4506A\AS.
How was case 6:21-cv-00655 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Bel Power Solutions, Inc. (“Bel”) and Defendant Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and respectfully request that the Court enter the following order: WHEREAS, Bel filed this action against MPS asserting claims of patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,936,999; 6,949,916; 7,000,125; 7,049,798; 7,080,265; and 7,456,617 (the “Asserted Patents”); WHEREAS,
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 6:21-cv-00655 take?
1748 calendar days, from filing on 23 Jun 2021 to closure on 6 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:21-cv-00655?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Andrew Thompson Gorham, Anthony Moon Pettes, Brandon N. McCarthy, Brian J. Sodikoff, Christopher B. Ferenc, Christopher B. Prescott, James Travis Underwood, Joseph Janusz, Matthew H. Hartzler, Melissa Richards Smith, Nikita Yogeshwarun and Rachel J. Schaub are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bel Power Solutions. Barry Kenneth Shelton, Brian Christopher Nash, Bryan Wilson, Diek O. Van Nort, John D. Esterhay, John P. Schnurer, Kyle R. Canavera, M. Craig Tyler, Miguel J. Bombach, Rachel S. Dolphin, Richard D. Milvenan, Ruohan Li, W. Stella Mao and Yue Li appear for defendant Monolithic Power Systems.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:21-cv-00655 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.