Bell Semiconductor v. Phison Electronics — Consent Judgment in 187 Days
Bell Semiconductor, LLC asserted US7231626B2 — covering engineering change order methods in integrated circuit design — against Phison Electronics in the Colorado District Court. The parties reached a consent judgment in under seven months, ending the infringement action before any substantive merits ruling.
IC design patent resolved by consent judgment in Colorado
On 13 October 2022, Bell Semiconductor, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Phison Electronics, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 1:22-cv-02696). The suit centred on US7231626B2, which claims a method of implementing an engineering change order (ECO) in an integrated circuit design by windows — a technique relevant to post-layout IC design modification workflows. Phison Electronics is a Taiwan-based supplier of NAND flash controller and storage solutions, making it a commercially significant defendant in an IC design patent dispute.
The recorded basis of termination is a Consent Judgment. The docket order states that the parties 'have resolved Plaintiff's claims for relief against Defendant' and jointly requested the court to dismiss Bell Semiconductor's claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The court entered this as the final resolution of the action. The specific terms underlying the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
A 187-day resolution — before any claim construction hearing or substantive merits ruling — is notably swift for a district court patent case. This timeline suggests the parties moved quickly toward resolution, though the drivers of that speed are not disclosed in the public record. Whether the resolution involved any licensing arrangement, design-around commitment, or other commercial terms remains unknown from publicly available filings.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 187 days
187 days — resolved before most patent cases reach claim construction
US7231626B2 — Engineering change order method in IC design
Any company developing IC design workflows — particularly those using engineering change order techniques in post-layout modification — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US7231626B2. This is especially relevant for NAND flash controller vendors, fabless chip designers, and EDA software developers whose tools or products implement windowed ECO methods. The consent judgment in this case produced no public claim construction record, leaving the scope of US7231626B2's claims uncharted by any court.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records a joint request by Bell Semiconductor and Phison Electronics to dismiss all claims with prejudice, with costs borne by each party. The order confirms the parties had resolved the underlying claims before any substantive judicial determination on infringement or validity. No findings of fact or conclusions of law accompany the order, and the specific terms of any resolution between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by the parties. Unlike a simple dismissal, it constitutes an adjudication on the record and carries the full force of a court order. Here, the parties jointly requested dismissal with prejudice — meaning Bell Semiconductor cannot re-file the same claims against Phison on the same patent. The specific terms underlying the agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Court-entered, binding and finalBell Semiconductor: claims end with prejudice, terms undisclosed
As plaintiff and patent holder, Bell Semiconductor achieved a resolution that closes this particular action with prejudice. The consent judgment preserves the validity of US7231626B2 — no invalidity finding was entered. Bell Semiconductor retains the patent and may continue to assert it against other parties. Whether this resolution included any commercial benefit to Bell Semiconductor is not disclosed in the available record.
Patent validity intactPhison Electronics: infringement claims dismissed with prejudice
For Phison Electronics, the consent judgment means Bell Semiconductor's infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice — Bell cannot re-litigate the same claims from this case against Phison under US7231626B2. Each party bears its own legal costs, as expressly stated in the docket order. The specific terms of any resolution between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims cannot be refiledUS7231626B2 remains active — IC design sector should take note
The consent judgment leaves US7231626B2 in force with no invalidity or unenforceability finding. Companies developing or marketing products that implement engineering change order methods in IC design workflows remain potentially exposed to the patent. The rapid resolution and absence of any public merits ruling means there is no claim construction record or invalidity analysis from this case to inform risk assessments for other players in the NAND flash and IC design space.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bell Semiconductor, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Phison Electronics, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Reed Clayton | Attorney | Counsel for Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John C. Heuton | Attorney | Counsel for Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kathryn Elizabeth Yukevich | Attorney | Counsel for Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mitchell Reed Sibley | Attorney | Counsel for Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul M. Richter | Attorney | Counsel for Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robyn Teresa Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKool Smith PC | Law Firm | Representing Bell Semiconductor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas Eric Chin | Attorney | Counsel for Phison Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hsuan-Yeh Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Phison Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter Yi | Attorney | Counsel for Phison Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hsuanyeh Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Phison Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Colorado District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the IC design and flash controller IP space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from Bell Semiconductor's enforcement of US7231626B2 against Phison Electronics — signals for teams in IC design and flash storage.
Bell Semiconductor's IC design patent portfolio activity
Bell Semiconductor is an IP licensing entity with a portfolio spanning semiconductor design methodology. Tracking its filing activity and prosecution history around ECO methods and IC design workflows can surface related patents that may be asserted against other players in the flash controller and EDA space. Portfolio mapping here is a priority for competitors and potential licensees.
Active licensing portfolioFiling trends in ECO and post-layout IC design methods
Engineering change order methods in IC design are an active area of patent filing by EDA vendors, fabless designers, and foundry IP groups. Analysing filing trends around windowed ECO techniques and post-layout modification workflows can reveal where innovation is concentrating and where patent thickets are forming — critical intelligence for IC design tool and chip development teams.
ECO method filing trendsPhison's patent position in NAND flash controller technology
Phison Electronics holds a patent portfolio in NAND flash controller design and storage solutions. Understanding the depth and coverage of Phison's own IP — including any filings in IC design methodology — can inform competitive strategy for flash controller developers and storage solution vendors operating in overlapping technology spaces.
Flash controller IP mapAdjacent ECO design spaces with lower patent density
The assertion of a windowed ECO method patent highlights potential white space in adjacent IC design optimisation techniques — such as automated ECO closure, timing-driven ECO, and formal verification-assisted change order methods. R&D teams developing next-generation EDA tools or IC design flows may find lower patent density in these adjacent spaces, offering freedom-to-operate and first-mover filing opportunities.
ECO design white spaceSimilar IC design patent enforcement cases in U.S. district courts
Explore patent infringement actions involving IC design methodology and semiconductor IP asserted in U.S. district courts, with comparable consent judgment or early resolution outcomes.
What this case signals for the IC design IP landscape
Bell Semiconductor's rapid consent judgment against Phison signals active enforcement of IC design methodology patents — with implications for the broader flash storage ecosystem.
US7231626B2 is still live — no invalidity finding protects the sector
The consent judgment produced no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no unenforceability finding. For companies in the IC design and NAND flash controller space, US7231626B2 remains a live risk. There is no public merits record from this case to rely on for a freedom-to-operate position.
Bell Semiconductor's enforcement pattern warrants portfolio-wide monitoring
Bell Semiconductor is an IP licensing entity that has pursued multiple defendants across the semiconductor IP space. A swift consent judgment here is consistent with a licensing-focused enforcement model. Companies in adjacent IC design and flash controller markets should monitor Bell Semiconductor's broader patent portfolio for related filings and assertion activity.
Bell v Phison — key questions answered
The case was resolved by consent judgment. The recorded basis of termination is a Consent Judgment entered in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The docket order reflects a joint request by both parties to dismiss Bell Semiconductor's claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. The specific terms of any underlying resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Bell Semiconductor asserted US7231626B2 (application number US11/015123), which claims a method of implementing an engineering change order in an integrated circuit design by windows. The patent relates to post-layout IC design modification methodology, a technique relevant to semiconductor design workflows.
No. The consent judgment produced no invalidity or unenforceability finding. The case closed before any substantive merits ruling, and there is no claim construction record or invalidity analysis from this proceeding. US7231626B2 remains in force.
The case lasted 187 days, from filing on 13 October 2022 to closure on 18 April 2023. This is notably swift for a U.S. district court patent case, resolving before any claim construction hearing or substantive merits determination.
The consent judgment leaves US7231626B2 enforceable and unchallenged on the merits. Companies implementing engineering change order methods in IC design workflows — including NAND flash controller developers, fabless chip designers, and EDA tool providers — remain potentially exposed to the patent. There is no public claim construction record from this case to inform a freedom-to-operate position.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.