Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Carnegie Mellon v. LSI Corp & Avago — HDD Read Channel Patent Litigation | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

Carnegie Mellon v. LSI Corp & Avago: HDD Read Channel Patents Settled After 2,881 Days

Carnegie Mellon University brought a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California against LSI Corp., Avago Technologies U.S., and Aleksandar Kavcic, asserting three patents covering hard disk drive read channel and branch metric technologies. The litigation spanned nearly eight years before the parties advised the court of a settlement in 2026.

Resolution time
2881days
Nearly 8 years from filing to settlement — long-running university IP enforcement action
Patents asserted
3
US6201839B1, US8873182B2, and US6438180B1 — HDD read channel and branch metric function patents
Outcome
Case Settled
Parties advised court of settlement; dismissal initially without prejudice, converting to with prejudice after 60 days absent certification
Cost ruling
Not recorded
No cost or fee ruling recorded in the available public record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Carnegie Mellon's Eight-Year Read Channel Patent Campaign Against LSI and Avago

Carnegie Mellon University filed this infringement action on 27 July 2018 in the Northern District of California against LSI Corp., Avago Technologies U.S., Inc., and individual defendant Aleksandar Kavcic. The case asserted three patents — US6201839B1, US8873182B2, and US6438180B1 — covering hard disk drive read channel technologies and branch metric functions. The accused products include the RC5101, RC5110, and RC5200 Spyder ELP PS read channel chips, TrueStore HDD Chips, and computer-implemented detectors described as 'Simulators' that apply branch metric functions to readback signal samples.

The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Settled.' The docket order states that the court was advised the parties had settled (Dkt. No. 470), vacated all pretrial deadlines, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The order further provided that if no party certified within 60 days that agreed settlement consideration had not been delivered, the dismissal would be deemed with prejudice. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.

A duration of 2,881 days — nearly eight years — is notably protracted even for complex multi-patent university enforcement actions. The case involved a substantial roster of counsel on both sides and multiple corporate defendants alongside an individual defendant, suggesting contested technical and legal issues throughout. What drove the timing of the ultimate settlement, and the content of any agreed consideration, are not disclosed in the public record.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
DefendantLSI, Corp.
CourtCalifornia Northern District Court
JudgeN/A
FiledJuly 27, 2018
ClosedJune 16, 2026
Duration2881 days
OutcomeCase Settled
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Settled
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / California Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Settled in 2881 days

Nearly 8 years from filing to settlement — long-running university IP enforcement action

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 27 2018 — 2881 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Carnegie Mellon University v LSI, Corp. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, California Northern District Court. JUL 27 2018 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUN 16 2026 Case Settled 2881 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US6201839B1, US8873182B2 & US6438180B1 — HDD Read Channel and Branch Metric Patents

Publication No.US6201839B1
Application No.US09/055003
Patent details
Producthard disk drive read channel signal processing and detection methods
Cited in actionJuly 27, 2018

Publication No.US8873182B2
Application No.US13/445878
Patent details
Productbranch metric computation methods for HDD read channel detectors
Cited in actionJuly 27, 2018

Publication No.US6438180B1
Application No.US09/259195
Patent details
Producthard disk drive read channel circuits and detection algorithms
Cited in actionJuly 27, 2018
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 14 independent)
What is claimed is: 1. A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Virterbi-like detector, comprising: selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index; and applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant. 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of receiving said signal samples, said signal samples having signal-dependent noi…
Technical background
1. Field of the Invention The present invention is directed generally to high density magnetic recording sequence detectors, and, more particularly, to correlation-sensitive sequence detectors. 2. Description of the Background In recent years, there has been a major shift in the design of signal detectors in magnetic recording. Traditional peak detectors (PD), such as those described in Nakagawa et al., "A Study of Detection Methods of NRZ Recording", IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 16, pp. 1041-110, Jan. 1980, have been r…
Patent family
1 family member across 1 jurisdiction (US)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO against US6201839B1, US8873182B2, and US6438180B1?

Product teams developing HDD read channel chips, storage controller ASICs, branch metric detector implementations, or readback signal simulation software should prioritise FTO analysis against Carnegie Mellon's three asserted patents. The settlement in this case produced no invalidity finding, leaving all three patents fully enforceable. The accused product categories — Spyder ELP read channels, TrueStore chips, and branch metric Simulators — suggest a claim scope that may extend to any implementation of similar detection architectures.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

The Court is advised that the parties have settled. Dkt. No. 470. Consequently, the Court vacates all pretrial deadlines and dismisses this case without prejudice. If any party certifies to the Court within 60 days from the date of this order that the agreed consideration for the settlement of this action has not been delivered, this order will be vacated and the case will be set for a case management conference. If no certification is filed, the dismissal will be deemed to be with prejudice after the 60 days. The parties are directed not to ask the Court for a “dismissal with prejudice” at any time after this order, or to ask for an order confirming dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1). An order is not necessary for dismissal under the rule.
Source: PACER Docket, Case 3:18-cv-04571, California Northern District Court

The court's order records settlement notification at Dkt. 470 and implements a conditional dismissal: initially without prejudice, automatically converting to with prejudice after 60 days if no party certifies that agreed consideration was not delivered. The order's express prohibition on seeking a separate Rule 41(a)(1) confirmation reflects the court's intent to treat its own order as the operative resolution instrument. No merits findings on infringement, validity, or damages are recorded.

PACER case 3:18-cv-04571 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Settlement terms

Case settled: what the agreed resolution means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Settlement-driven dismissal with a 60-day conversion clause

The court's order dismisses the case without prejudice upon notification of settlement, but includes an automatic conversion mechanism: if no party files a certification within 60 days that agreed settlement consideration was not delivered, the dismissal becomes with prejudice. The court expressly directed the parties not to seek a separate dismissal with prejudice order or an FRCP 41(a)(1) confirmation. The specific settlement terms are not disclosed in the available record.

Conditional dismissal mechanism
Patent holder outcome

Carnegie Mellon resolves long-running read channel IP campaign

Carnegie Mellon's three asserted patents — covering HDD read channel and branch metric function technologies — were at issue for nearly eight years before settlement. The specific consideration agreed by the parties is not disclosed in the available record. The conversion-to-with-prejudice clause, if triggered, would extinguish Carnegie Mellon's ability to re-assert the same claims against the same defendants in a new action.

Terms undisclosed
Defendant outcome

LSI, Avago, and Kavcic avoid further litigation exposure

LSI Corp., Avago Technologies U.S., and individual defendant Aleksandar Kavcic avoided a merits adjudication on infringement of the three asserted patents. If the 60-day consideration-delivery period elapsed without certification, the with-prejudice conversion would bar Carnegie Mellon from re-filing the same claims. The specific terms agreed by the defendants are not disclosed in the available public record.

No merits adjudication
Commercial implications

HDD read channel IP enforcement landscape post-settlement

The settlement leaves the three asserted patents — US6201839B1, US8873182B2, and US6438180B1 — without a public merits ruling on validity or infringement. Companies developing or selling HDD read channel chips, TrueStore-class storage silicon, or branch metric simulation tools should note that these patents remain in Carnegie Mellon's portfolio without any invalidating judgment on record from this proceeding. Independent FTO analysis is advisable for products in scope.

Patents not invalidated
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 3:18-cv-04571 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffCarnegie Mellon UniversityCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantLSI, Corp.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantAvago Technologies U.S., Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantAleksandar KavcicIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAnna ShabalovAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristopher Michael VerdiniAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEdward Patrick SangsterAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselErik James HalversonAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselHarold H. Davis , Jr.AttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMark G. KnedeisenAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael E. ZeligerAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPatrick Joseph McElhinnyAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRachel EllenbergerAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRanjini AcharyaAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSamantha J. ThompsonAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTheodore J. AngelisAttorneyCounsel for Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmGreenberg Traurig LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmK&L Gates LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmKl Gates, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Carnegie Mellon UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAlan P. BlockAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAngela Campbell TarasiAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBarry Gene FelderAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBrian Jeffrey EutermoserAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJaime DorenbaumAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJanna K FischerAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJennifer Leigh TrueloveAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKaylee E. HoffnerAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKenneth L. SteinthalAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKirk DillmanAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMariel TalmageAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRamy HannaAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSarah HassanAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSteven Jay RizziAttorneyCounsel for LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmFoley & Lardner LLPLaw FirmRepresenting LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKing & Spalding LLPLaw FirmRepresenting LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMcKool Smith PCLaw FirmRepresenting LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMcKool Smith Hennigan PCLaw FirmRepresenting LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmNassiri & Jung LLPLaw FirmRepresenting LSI, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeCalifornia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in the HDD read channel and storage semiconductor IP space

Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Carnegie Mellon's read channel portfolio and the broader HDD signal processing technology landscape around the accused products.

Patent portfolio

Carnegie Mellon's HDD signal processing patent activity

Carnegie Mellon has historically maintained an active filing posture in magnetic storage signal processing, with the three asserted patents representing a portion of its read channel portfolio. Mapping CMU's continuation filings, divisional applications, and recent prosecution activity can reveal whether new claims covering next-generation detector architectures are pending or granted — a critical step for any HDD chip development programme.

CMU read channel portfolio
Technology landscape

Filing trends in HDD branch metric and PRML detection patents

Branch metric computation and partial-response maximum-likelihood (PRML) detection remain active areas of patent filing as storage densities increase and multi-level cell architectures emerge. Tracking filing trends in this space across academic institutions and semiconductor companies can identify where the next generation of enforcement risk is building — particularly as HDD technology intersects with emerging flash and hybrid storage architectures.

PRML & branch metric trends
Competitor IP posture

LSI and Avago (Broadcom) read channel patent position post-settlement

LSI Corp. and Avago Technologies — now part of the Broadcom group — hold substantial independent patent portfolios in HDD controller and read channel technology. Analysing their filing activity around the RC5101/RC5110/RC5200 Spyder product line and TrueStore chip architecture can reveal defensive patent builds, design-around filings, or gaps that present cross-licensing or challenge opportunities for competitors in the storage semiconductor space.

Broadcom/LSI HDD IP
White space

Adjacent R&D opportunities near CMU's read channel claim scope

The claim scope of US6201839B1 and US6438180B1 centres on specific branch metric function formulations for magnetic channel detection. Adjacent white space may exist in neural-network-based detector architectures, non-binary LDPC decoding pipelines, and solid-state storage channel estimation — areas where CMU's granted claims may not read but where the underlying signal processing problems are analogous. Identifying these gaps can guide defensible R&D investment.

Next-gen detector white space
Related litigation

Similar HDD read channel patent infringement cases in federal district court

Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving HDD read channel, branch metric, and storage semiconductor technologies litigated in U.S. federal district courts.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Carnegie Mellon University patent enforcement history, California Northern District Court case history, Carnegie Mellon University's full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
CMU v. Marvell (W.D. Pa.)HDD chip patent disputesBranch metric IP casesUniversity vs. semiconductor firms
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the HDD and storage semiconductor IP landscape

An eight-year university patent enforcement action settling without a merits ruling keeps three read channel patents live and enforceable.

University read channel patents remain a credible enforcement vehicle

Carnegie Mellon's willingness to sustain litigation for nearly eight years against major semiconductor defendants signals that research university IP portfolios in storage technology are actively enforced. Companies supplying HDD read channel silicon should treat academic patent holders as material enforcement risk, not theoretical claimants.

No invalidity ruling means all three patents survive for future enforcement

Because the case settled without a final merits ruling, US6201839B1, US8873182B2, and US6438180B1 carry no court-confirmed invalidity finding. Competitors and successors to LSI and Avago in the HDD chip space cannot rely on this litigation as prior art clearance for their own products.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis on HDD read channel patent enforcement risk at district court level, including FTO and portfolio signals.
Branch metric claim scopeCMU portfolio continuationsBroadcom successor risk
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Carnegie v LSI — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run FTO on Carnegie Mellon's HDD read channel patents before your next design

US6201839B1, US8873182B2, and US6438180B1 survive this litigation without an invalidity ruling. Use PatSnap Eureka to assess your exposure, map CMU's continuation filings, and monitor enforcement activity across the HDD read channel patent landscape.

Disclaimer

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.