Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Onesta IP, LLC

6:25-cv-00581 W.D. Tex. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 15 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 22 Apr 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US8443209B2US8854381B2
Case no.
6:25-cv-00581
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
15 Dec 2025 – 22 Apr 2026
Duration
128 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
BMW AG vehicles fitted with Qualcomm Snapdragon-System-on-Chip (SoC) with an integrated Adreno-GPU
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:25-cv-00581, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8443209B2 Active App. US12/508935

Throttling computational units according to performance sensitivity

ONESTA IP, LLC

A power allocation strategy limits performance of a subset of a plurality of computational units in a computer system according to performance sensitivity of each of the plurality of computational units to a change performance capability, e.g., frequency change. The performance of the subset of computational units may be limited by setting a power state in which the subset may be operated and/or reducing a current power state of the subset to a lower power state. The subset whose performance is limited includes computational units that are least performance sensitive according to stored sensitivity data. The subset may include one or more processing cores and performance of the one or more processing cores may be limited in response to a CPU-bounded application or graphics processing unit (GPU)-bounded application being executed.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
14 May 2013
Est. expiry
5 Apr 2031
Validity challenges
1 on record90015950 · EPR
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G05B13/02G06F1/00
Prosecution counsel
VOLPE KOENIG
Examiner
ELAMIN, M
US8443209B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8443209B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
US8854381B2 Active App. US12/874134

Processing unit that enables asynchronous task dispatch

ONESTA IP, LLC

A processing unit that includes a plurality of virtual engines and a shader core. The plurality of virtual engines is configured to (i) receive, from an operating system (OS), a plurality of tasks substantially in parallel with each other and (ii) load a set of state data associated with each of the plurality of tasks. The shader core is configured to execute the plurality of tasks substantially in parallel based on the set of state data associated with each of the plurality of tasks. The processing unit may also include a scheduling module that schedules the plurality of tasks to be issued to the shader core.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
7 Oct 2014
Earliest priority
3 Sep 2009
Est. expiry
10 Apr 2033
Validity challenges
2 on record90015917 · EPRIPR2023-00687 · Patentability · filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F15/80G06F15/16G06F9/50G06T1/20G06T15/00
Prosecution counsel
Volpe Koenig
Examiner
CRAWFORD, JACINTA M
US8854381B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8854381B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Aaron Lee ParkerBayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftPlaintiff
David Thomas FaurieBayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftPlaintiff
J. Derek MccorquindaleBayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftPlaintiff
Joseph Michael MylesBayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftPlaintiff
Lionel M. LavenueBayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftPlaintiff
Matthew Carl BerntsenBayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftPlaintiff
Victor Manuel PalaceBayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftPlaintiff
Yi YangBayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftPlaintiff
Aisha Mahmood HaleyOnesta IP, LLCDefendant
Austin CurryOnesta IP, LLCDefendant
Daniel R. PearsonOnesta IP, LLCDefendant
Jason D. CassadyOnesta IP, LLCDefendant
Mark D. SiegmundOnesta IP, LLCDefendant
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

"Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (“BMW AG”) hereby dismisses all claims in this action without prejudice. This dismissal follows the filing by Defendant Onesta IP, LLC (“Onesta”) of its latest covenant not to sue, which Onesta contends eliminates any remaining controversy as to U.S. Patents Nos. 8,854,381 and 8,443,209. Dkt. 63. In that filing, Onesta represents: Onesta IP, LLC, for and on behalf of itself, its subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliates, as well as any of their predecessors, successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, attorneys, and representatives, hereby unconditionally and irrevocably covenants to refrain from commencing or maintaining any action or proceeding anywhere in the world against Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft or any of its successors, customers, affiliates, manufacturers, distributors, or licensees, based on any possible cause of action arising under the patent laws of the United States relating to U.S. Patents Nos. 8,854,381 and 8,443,209 with respect to any past, present, or future vehicle, product, or component made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft or any of its successors, customers, affiliates, manufacturers, distributors, or licensees, regardless of whether said vehicles, products, or components are made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported before, on, or after April 16, 2026. In light of that filing, and after BMW AG secured the anti-suit injunction requiring termination of Onesta’s improper German proceedings asserting U.S. patents, which Onesta thereafter withdrew, BMW AG has elected to dismiss this action."

Case 6:25-cv-00581 · W.D. Tex. · closed 22 April 2026
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.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for control & regulating systems and electric digital data processing
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:25-cv-00581?

6:25-cv-00581 is a patent infringement action brought by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft against Onesta IP, LLC, filed on 15 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 22 April 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 6:25-cv-00581?

US8443209B2 (“Throttling computational units according to performance sensitivity”), assigned to ONESTA IP, LLC, currently active; US8854381B2 (“Processing unit that enables asynchronous task dispatch”), assigned to ONESTA IP, LLC, currently active. The record also lists BMW AG vehicles fitted with Qualcomm Snapdragon-System-on-Chip (SoC) with an integrated Adreno-GPU.

How was case 6:25-cv-00581 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: "Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (“BMW AG”) hereby dismisses all claims in this action without prejudice. This dismissal follows the filing by Defendant Onesta IP, LLC (“Onesta”) of its latest covenant not to sue, which Onesta contends eliminates any remaining controversy as to U.S. Patents Nos. 8,854,381 and 8,443,209. Dkt. 63. In that filing, Onesta represents: Onesta IP, LLC, for and on behalf of itself, its subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliates, as well as any of their predecessors, successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees

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 6:25-cv-00581 take?

128 calendar days, from filing on 15 Dec 2025 to closure on 22 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:25-cv-00581?

Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Aaron Lee Parker, David Thomas Faurie, J. Derek Mccorquindale, Joseph Michael Myles, Lionel M. Lavenue, Matthew Carl Berntsen, Victor Manuel Palace and Yi Yang are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft. Aisha Mahmood Haley, Austin Curry, Daniel R. Pearson, Jason D. Cassady and Mark D. Siegmund appear for defendant Onesta IP.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:25-cv-00581 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Browse related dockets
Cases in W.D. Tex. Cases on control & regulating systems and electric digital data processing All patent litigation records

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:25-cv-00581 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.