Collabo Innovations v. AMD — Dismissed With Prejudice After 5+ Years of Litigation
Collabo Innovations, Inc. asserted US7930575B2 against Advanced Micro Devices’ 14h through 17h APU Core C6 processor families in the Western District of Texas. After more than five and a half years of litigation before Judge Alan D. Albright, the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — each side absorbing its own costs.
A prolonged processor IP dispute ends quietly in Waco
On 2 July 2018, Collabo Innovations, Inc. filed suit against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting infringement of US7930575B2 — a patent directed at power management or state-control technology relevant to AMD’s 14h, 15h, 16h, and 17h APU families of Core C6 processors. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division, a forum that became one of the most active patent litigation venues in the United States during this period.
The litigation closed on 7 February 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, accepted and ordered by the Court. All of Collabo’s infringement claims against AMD, and any counterclaims AMD had asserted against Collabo, were extinguished permanently. Neither party was awarded costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees — a mutual cost-bearing arrangement that is standard in negotiated resolutions but notable given the duration of proceedings.
The case spanned approximately 2,046 days — a timeline consistent with complex patent litigation that survived multiple stages before resolution. The simultaneous dismissal of any AMD counterclaims suggests the parties reached a comprehensive settlement, though the specific financial or licensing terms, if any, are not part of the public record. The with-prejudice designation provides AMD with certainty that these specific patent claims cannot be relitigated by Collabo.
Filing to filing in 2046 days
Duration from filing to close — a lengthy district court patent dispute
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Collabo Innovations, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7930575B2 targeting processor power managementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Company | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. — global semiconductor company, designer of AMD APU processorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Henry B. Gonzalez , III | Attorney | Counsel for Collabo Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aashish G. Kapadia | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ahimsa E. Hodari | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian K. Erickson | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chris M. Katsantonis | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Deck | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clark Oberembt | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Valencia | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas R. Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin E. Larson | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin P. Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Michael Guaragna | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin J. Meek | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michelle E. Armond | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Puneet Kohli | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The order’s language — ‘finds good cause exists’ and ‘in all respects, GRANTED’ — reflects a court accepting a fully agreed termination without independently evaluating merits. The with-prejudice designation is consequential: it carries the same legal weight as a final judgment, permanently barring Collabo from reasserting these claims. The ‘if any’ qualifier on AMD’s counterclaims is standard protective drafting in stipulated dismissals and does not imply AMD lacked viable defences.
US7930575B2 — Processor power-state management for AMD APU families
US7930575B2, filed under application number US11/898145, covers technology in the domain of processor power state management — specifically mechanisms associated with the Core C6 (CC6) low-power state used in AMD’s APU processor families spanning the 14h (Jaguar/Kabini), 15h (Bulldozer/Piledriver), 16h (Beema/Mullins), and 17h (Zen) microarchitectures. CC6 states involve flushing and restoring CPU core context to allow deep power reduction, making them central to mobile and embedded processor efficiency claims.
The strategic significance of this patent lies in its breadth across consecutive AMD microarchitecture generations. Asserting a single patent against four distinct APU families suggests the claims were drafted — or interpreted — at a level of abstraction that transcends specific silicon implementations. For competitors and licensees in the x86, ARM, or RISC-V processor space implementing comparable deep C-state or power-gating mechanisms, this patent represents a reference point for freedom-to-operate analysis in processor power management.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US7930575B2?
Any R&D team designing processors, SoCs, or embedded chips that implement deep core power states — including C6-equivalent sleep states, context flush/restore mechanisms, or fine-grained power gating — should assess US7930575B2 before tape-out or product launch. The claims were considered viable enough to survive more than five years of litigation against one of the world’s largest chip designers, which suggests non-trivial claim breadth.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US7930575B2’s independent claims against your product architecture, identify related continuation or divisional patents in the same family, and flag any co-pending applications that could extend risk. Claim monitoring against this patent and its US11/898145 application lineage is recommended for product teams shipping APU-class or power-managed processor designs into US markets.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7930575B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar processor patent infringement cases in the Western District of Texas
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the semiconductor processor IP landscape
A five-year patent assertion against AMD’s APU line in Judge Albright’s court carries strategic lessons for anyone operating in processor architecture IP.
Judge Albright’s court remains a high-stakes venue for semiconductor IP
The Western District of Texas under Judge Albright became the US’s busiest patent court during this case’s lifespan. Filing here — as Collabo did in 2018 — signals a plaintiff’s intent to leverage venue-specific scheduling advantages. Companies with processor products sold into Texas markets should maintain active monitoring of PAE filings in this district.
Core C6 power-state technology is an active assertion target
US7930575B2 targets processor power management — specifically the Core C6 sleep/wake state mechanism present across multiple AMD APU generations. Any company designing or shipping ARM, x86, or hybrid processors with similar C-state management should assess their exposure to patents in this family before product launch.
Collabo v Advanced — key questions answered
Collabo Innovations, Inc. sued Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting that AMD’s 14h, 15h, 16h, and 17h APU families of Core C6 processors infringed US7930575B2, a patent covering processor power-state management technology. The case was filed on 2 July 2018 and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.
The case ended on 7 February 2024 with a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, accepted by the court. All of Collabo’s claims against AMD, and any AMD counterclaims, were permanently dismissed. Each party bore its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal with prejudice means Collabo cannot refile these claims against AMD.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final, court-ordered termination that carries the same legal weight as a judgment on the merits. AMD is permanently protected from Collabo Innovations reasserting US7930575B2 infringement claims against the same accused products in any US federal court. It provides AMD with durable certainty over its APU product lines.
The accused products were AMD’s 14h, 15h, 16h, and 17h APU families of Core C6 processors. These span multiple AMD microarchitecture generations including Jaguar (14h), Bulldozer/Piledriver (15h), Beema/Mullins (16h), and the Zen family (17h), all of which implement Core C6 deep power-state functionality.
The public record does not disclose specific settlement terms. The joint stipulation of dismissal and the mutual cost-bearing provision are consistent with a privately negotiated resolution — potentially including a licence or payment — but no financial terms were filed with the court. The case closed as a dismissal with prejudice with no prevailing party fee award.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.