Infringement action filed 13 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and closed 18 Apr 2023, with US7231626B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
A method of implementing an engineering change order includes steps of: (a) receiving as input an integrated circuit design; (b) receiving as input an engineering change order to the integrated circuit design; (c) creating at least one window in the integrated circuit design that encloses a change to the integrated circuit design introduced by the engineering change order wherein the window is bounded by coordinates that define an area that is less than an entire area of the integrated circuit design; (d) performing a routing of the integrated circuit design that excludes routing of any net that is not enclosed by the window; (e) replacing an area in a copy of the integrated circuit design that is bounded by the coordinates of the window with results of the incremental routing to generate a revised integrated circuit design; and (f) generating as output the revised integrated circuit design.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"WHEREAS, Plaintiff Bell Semiconductor, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Bell Semic”) and Defendant Phison Electronics Inc.1 (“Defendant” or “Phison”) have resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendant in the above-captioned case. NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, through their attorneys of record, request this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendant with prejudice, and with all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses borne by the party incurring same."
Case 1:22-cv-02696 · D. Colo. · closed 18 April 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
1:22-cv-02696 is a patent infringement action brought by Bell Semiconductor, LLC against Phison Electronics, Inc., filed on 13 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The case closed on 18 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-02696?
US7231626B2 (“Method of implementing an engineering change order in an integrated circuit design by windows”), assigned to BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method of implementing an engineering change order in an integrated circuit design by windows.
How was case 1:22-cv-02696 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: "WHEREAS, Plaintiff Bell Semiconductor, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Bell Semic”) and Defendant Phison Electronics Inc.1 (“Defendant” or “Phison”) have resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendant in the above-captioned case. NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, through their attorneys of record, request this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendant with prejudice, and with all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses borne by the party incurring same."
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 1:22-cv-02696 take?
187 calendar days, from filing on 13 Oct 2022 to closure on 18 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-02696?
Christopher Reed Clayton, John C. Heuton, Kathryn Elizabeth Yukevich, Mitchell Reed Sibley, Paul M. Richter and Robyn Teresa Williams are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bell Semiconductor. Douglas Eric Chin, Hsuan-Yeh Chang and Peter Yi appear for defendant Phison Electronics.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-02696 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-02696 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.
