Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Infringement action filed 28 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 9 Mar 2023, with US7231626B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7231626B2
- Application no.
- US11/015123
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-11839
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Mass.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Massachusetts
- Chief judge
- Allison D. Burroughs
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Oct 2022 – 9 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 132 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Method of implementing an engineering change order in an integrated circuit design by windows
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Method of implementing an engineering change order in an integrated circuit design by windows
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.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 12 Jun 2007
- Est. expiry
- 26 Jul 2025
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HOFF, JASON K. · LAKSHMANAN, VISWANATHAN · JOSEPHIDES, MICHAEL · PREVEDEL, DANIEL W. · BLINNE, RICHARD D. · KUPPINGER, JOHATHAN P.
- Classification
- G06F17/50
- Prosecution counsel
- MENDELSOHN DUNLEAVY, P.C.
- Examiner
- KIK, PHALLAKA
Parties of record
Bell Semiconductor, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F17/50
- Counsel
- Alexandra Figari Easley · Ashley N. Moore · David Sochia · Kyle N. Ryman · Richard A. Kamprath · William F. McGonigle III
- Firm
- Arrowood LLP, McKool Smith PC, Michelman & Robinson, LLP
Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- James M. Dowd · Stephanie Lin
- Firm
- Wilmer Hale LLP, WilmerHale LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alexandra Figari Easley | Bell Semiconductor, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Ashley N. Moore | Bell Semiconductor, LLC | Plaintiff |
| David Sochia | Bell Semiconductor, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Kyle N. Ryman | Bell Semiconductor, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Richard A. Kamprath | Bell Semiconductor, LLC | Plaintiff |
| William F. McGonigle III | Bell Semiconductor, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James M. Dowd | Skyworks Solutions, Inc. | Defendant |
| Stephanie Lin | Skyworks Solutions, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The Case is ordered dismissedwithout prejudice with leave forthe plaintiff to file within 30 days a motion forleave to file an amended complaint. The defendant shallrespondwithin 14 days. The case is ordered administratively closed andmay be reopened uponmotion upon conclusion of ITCInvestigation.”
Case 1:22-cv-11839 · D. Mass. · closed 9 March 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 1:22-cv-11839?
1:22-cv-11839 is a patent infringement action brought by Bell Semiconductor, LLC against Skyworks Solutions, Inc., filed on 28 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 9 March 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-11839?
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-11839 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “The Case is ordered dismissedwithout prejudice with leave forthe plaintiff to file within 30 days a motion forleave to file an amended complaint. The defendant shallrespondwithin 14 days. The case is ordered administratively closed andmay be reopened uponmotion upon conclusion of ITCInvestigation.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:22-cv-11839 take?
132 calendar days, from filing on 28 Oct 2022 to closure on 9 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-11839?
Chief Judge Allison D. Burroughs presided. Alexandra Figari Easley, Ashley N. Moore, David Sochia, Kyle N. Ryman, Richard A. Kamprath and William F. McGonigle III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bell Semiconductor. James M. Dowd and Stephanie Lin appear for defendant Skyworks Solutions.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-11839 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.