Helix Microinnovations v. Infineon Technologies: Dismissed With Prejudice in 108 Days
Helix Microinnovations LLC filed a patent infringement action against Infineon Technologies AG in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US7238550B2 covering methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules. The case closed just 108 days after filing, dismissed with prejudice on Plaintiff's voluntary motion before Infineon filed any response.
Chip-on-Board patent suit against Infineon ends at the starting line
On 17 February 2026, Helix Microinnovations LLC filed a patent infringement action against Infineon Technologies AG in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The sole asserted patent was US7238550B2, directed to methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules — a packaging technology integral to dense semiconductor assemblies. Plaintiff was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC; no defendant law firm or agents appear on the public docket.
On 5 June 2026, just 108 days after filing, Helix Microinnovations filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Infineon had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissing all claims with prejudice and ordering each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice'; the docket order is styled as an acceptance of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal with prejudice.
The case resolved before Infineon engaged publicly on the merits, which means no claim construction, invalidity arguments, or licensing terms entered the public record. The swift voluntary dismissal with prejudice — foreclosing any re-filing of the same claims — is consistent with parties reaching an accommodation, but the specific terms, if any, are not disclosed in the available record. What drove the dismissal, and whether any commercial arrangement underlies it, remains unknown from the publicly available docket.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 108 days
108 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion
US7238550B2 — Methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules
Any company designing or contracting for Chip-on-Board module fabrication — including module manufacturers, EMS providers, and semiconductor companies using CoB packaging — should assess their exposure to US7238550B2. The patent has not been invalidated or construed by any court. The early dismissal in this case provides no freedom-to-operate comfort for third parties. R&D and product teams qualifying new CoB assembly processes or subcontractors face real and unresolved risk.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order does not adjudicate infringement or validity — it accepts and acknowledges the plaintiff's unilateral notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), entered before Infineon appeared on the merits. The 'dismissed with prejudice' designation, chosen by Helix Microinnovations rather than imposed by the court, extinguishes the specific claims against Infineon while leaving US7238550B2 otherwise intact. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a clean exit, though no underlying terms are disclosed.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff's unilateral right to dismiss
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Infineon had not yet responded, Helix Microinnovations could exercise this right unilaterally. The court accepted the notice and entered the dismissal. The 'with prejudice' designation was chosen by the plaintiff, not imposed by the court.
Voluntary — pre-answer filingWith prejudice bars Helix from re-asserting the same claims against Infineon
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Helix Microinnovations cannot refile this infringement action against Infineon Technologies on the basis of US7238550B2 for the same accused conduct. The patent itself remains in force and can theoretically be enforced against other parties, but this specific dispute is permanently closed. No damages award or injunction was entered.
Patent survives; this claim extinguishedInfineon exits without conceding infringement or paying disclosed damages
Infineon Technologies never filed an answer, assertion of invalidity, or summary judgment motion. The public record contains no admission of infringement or validity concession. The dismissal with prejudice provides Infineon with finality on this specific claim, and the cost order — each side bears its own fees — means no attorneys' fee award was made against either party. Whether any undisclosed commercial terms accompanied the dismissal is not in the public record.
No merits ruling; finality achievedEarly dismissal limits public record on CoB module patent scope
Because the case ended before any claim construction or validity ruling, the enforceability boundaries of US7238550B2 remain untested in litigation. Other semiconductor manufacturers active in Chip-on-Board packaging cannot draw guidance from this case on claim scope or invalidity. The patent's assertion potential against third parties is undiminished by this proceeding, and the absence of any fee-shifting suggests neither party viewed the claims as objectively unreasonable.
Claim scope untested; patent still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Helix Microinnovations LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Infineon Technologies, AG | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Helix Microinnovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Helix Microinnovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the semiconductor packaging IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Helix Microinnovations v. Infineon Technologies and the broader Chip-on-Board technology domain.
Helix Microinnovations' broader patent holdings in microelectronics
US7238550B2 may be one of several patents in Helix Microinnovations' portfolio targeting semiconductor assembly and packaging methods. Mapping the full scope of their holdings can reveal whether other CoB, flip-chip, or substrate-level packaging patents pose assertion risk to companies active in these manufacturing domains.
Portfolio mappingFiling trends in Chip-on-Board and advanced packaging technologies
CoB packaging and related advanced assembly methods — including fan-out wafer-level packaging and embedded die — have attracted significant patent filing activity as the industry pursues miniaturisation and thermal performance gains. Understanding which assignees are most active and where white space exists is critical for R&D prioritisation.
Filing trend analysisInfineon's patent position in compact semiconductor packaging
Infineon Technologies holds a substantial portfolio in power semiconductor packaging, sensor modules, and CoB-adjacent assembly technologies. Benchmarking Infineon's defensive IP position against emerging assertion targets can help competitors and supply chain partners understand the defensive landscape and potential cross-licensing dynamics in this sector.
Defensive portfolio benchmarkAdjacent innovation opportunities near US7238550B2 claim space
With US7238550B2's claim boundaries untested by any court ruling, R&D teams can use prior art analysis and claim mapping to identify design-around opportunities and white-space areas in CoB fabrication where novel methods or materials may be patentable without infringing the asserted claims.
Design-around & white spaceSimilar Chip-on-Board and semiconductor packaging patent cases
Explore related patent infringement actions in semiconductor packaging and CoB module technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the semiconductor packaging IP landscape
A rapid pre-answer dismissal with prejudice in the Eastern District of Texas leaves the CoB patent landscape open — and worth watching.
US7238550B2 remains enforceable against other Chip-on-Board manufacturers
The dismissal with prejudice only bars Helix's claims against Infineon for this accused conduct. The patent has not been invalidated, found unenforceable, or subjected to any claim construction ruling. Companies producing Chip-on-Board modules should assess their exposure independently — this case provides no safe harbour.
Pre-answer resolution limits public intelligence on claim scope
No infringement contentions, invalidity charts, or claim construction briefs entered the public record. Competitors and freedom-to-operate analysts must rely on the patent's face, prosecution history, and related art rather than any judicial guidance. A PatSnap Eureka FTO search against US7238550B2 is the most direct route to assessing current exposure.
Helix v Infineon — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 5 June 2026. Helix Microinnovations LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Infineon Technologies answered or moved for summary judgment. Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
Helix Microinnovations asserted US7238550B2, a patent covering methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules (application number US10/371800). The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on 17 February 2026.
Dismissed with prejudice means Helix Microinnovations is permanently barred from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Infineon Technologies based on the same accused conduct. The dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits for this specific dispute, even though no court ruled on infringement or validity. US7238550B2 itself remains in force against other parties.
No. The docket order expressly states that Infineon Technologies had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment at the time Helix Microinnovations filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. As a result, no invalidity arguments, non-infringement contentions, or claim construction positions from Infineon entered the public record.
This dismissal provides no freedom-to-operate comfort for third parties. US7238550B2 was not invalidated, found unenforceable, or subjected to any claim construction ruling. Companies fabricating or procuring Chip-on-Board modules should conduct an independent FTO analysis against the patent's claims, as the enforceability boundaries remain fully untested in litigation.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.