Helix Microinnovations v. Marubeni America: CoB Patent Settled in 88 Days
Helix Microinnovations LLC filed suit against Marubeni America Corporation in the Southern District of New York, asserting US7238550B2 — a patent covering methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules. The case resolved in just 88 days, with the parties notifying Judge Gregory H. Woods of a settlement before any substantive motions were decided.
Early settlement closes CoB fabrication dispute before any merits ruling
On August 23, 2024, Helix Microinnovations LLC filed a patent infringement action against Marubeni America Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-06394), assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods. The complaint centred on US7238550B2, a patent directed to methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules — a semiconductor packaging technology that mounts bare dies directly onto a substrate, enabling compact, high-performance assemblies.
By November 19, 2024 — just 88 days after filing — the parties jointly informed the Court of a settlement. Judge Woods issued an order conditionally discontinuing the action without prejudice and without costs. The order preserves a 30-day window during which either a formal Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal may be submitted, or the plaintiff may seek reinstatement if the settlement is not consummated. Absent any such application, the order automatically converts to a final discontinuance with prejudice.
The speed of resolution — under three months from filing to settlement notification — suggests the parties may have reached an agreement on licensing terms or a pre-existing commercial relationship that facilitated swift negotiation. The public record is silent on financial terms or any licence arrangement. The conditional without-prejudice structure preserves Helix Microinnovations’ optionality if the settlement collapses, but the 30-day clock makes a final resolution likely imminent.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 88 days
88-day resolution — well below the typical 2–3 year district court patent litigation average
Conditionally dismissed without prejudice: what the settlement order means
Conditional discontinuance without prejudice explained
A conditional dismissal without prejudice means the case is not yet permanently closed. Judge Woods’ order suspends the action for 30 days, during which the parties must either file a formal Stipulation of Dismissal or the plaintiff must seek reinstatement. If neither occurs, the dismissal automatically becomes final with prejudice — meaning Helix Microinnovations could not re-file the same claims against Marubeni America on this patent.
Conditional 30-day windowPublic record is silent on whether prejudice ultimately attaches
The order is structured so that the ultimate character of the dismissal — with or without prejudice — depends on events occurring within 30 days of November 19, 2024. If no Stipulation is filed and no reinstatement sought, dismissal with prejudice follows automatically. The public docket does not yet confirm which path was taken, so practitioners should monitor for a subsequent Stipulation of Dismissal or reinstatement application before drawing conclusions about Helix’s future enforcement options.
Monitor for final stipulationHelix Microinnovations retains optionality within 30-day window
Helix Microinnovations preserves the right to restore the action to the active docket if the settlement is not consummated, consistent with standard Southern District of New York settlement order practice. However, if the settlement closes, US7238550B2 remains intact and enforceable against other parties — the resolution of this single action does not affect the patent’s validity or scope.
Patent remains enforceableMarubeni America exits without public admission or cost award
The dismissal without costs is commercially favourable for Marubeni America: no fee-shifting order was entered and no liability was adjudicated. Settlement terms remain confidential, so the market cannot determine whether a licence fee was paid. Marubeni America’s broader CoB-related product activities are unaddressed by the public record, and any licence scope agreed privately would bind the parties without public disclosure.
No public liability findingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Helix Microinnovations LLC | Company | Semiconductor IP licensing entity — holder of US7238550B2 covering Chip-on-Board fabricationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Marubeni America Corporation | Company | Marubeni America Corporation — U.S. subsidiary of Japanese trading conglomerate Marubeni CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Helix Microinnovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Helix Microinnovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Laura Krawczyk | Attorney | Counsel for Marubeni America CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott David Stimpson | Attorney | Counsel for Marubeni America CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sills Cummis & Gross PC | Law Firm | Representing Marubeni America CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Gregory H. Woods | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The November 19, 2024 order reflects a standard Southern District of New York conditional settlement procedure: the action is suspended rather than immediately terminated, preserving judicial oversight during the settlement consummation window. Critically, no merits ruling, claim construction, or validity finding was issued, meaning US7238550B2 emerges from this action legally unscathed and available for future enforcement. The no-costs provision indicates neither side sought fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigated outcome.
US7238550B2 — Chip-on-Board module fabrication methods and apparatus
US7238550B2, filed under application number US10/371800, covers methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules — a semiconductor packaging approach in which bare integrated circuit dies are mounted and wire-bonded directly onto a printed circuit board or substrate, rather than being housed in a conventional package. CoB technology enables high component density, reduced assembly height, and improved thermal performance, making it relevant across LED lighting, consumer electronics, industrial controls, and display applications.
From a strategic standpoint, US7238550B2 represents a process and apparatus patent in a well-established but commercially active packaging segment. CoB adoption has expanded significantly in LED and optoelectronics manufacturing, meaning the patent’s claim scope — if broad enough to cover modern automated CoB assembly lines — could implicate a wide range of manufacturers, EMS providers, and distributors. The fact that Helix Microinnovations secured a rapid settlement against a major trading company suggests the patent is being actively monetised, and other actors in the CoB supply chain should assess their exposure.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US7238550B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or incorporating Chip-on-Board assemblies — particularly in LED lighting, display modules, or compact electronics — should evaluate whether their products or processes fall within the claim scope of US7238550B2. The Helix v. Marubeni action demonstrates that enforcement is not limited to fabricators: downstream distributors and trading entities have been targeted. If your supply chain includes CoB modules sourced from third parties, your indemnification agreements and FTO coverage should be reviewed urgently.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the claims of US7238550B2 against their specific CoB fabrication or assembly processes, identify prior art that could inform an invalidity position, and surface related patent families held by Helix Microinnovations or affiliated entities. Eureka’s automated claim charting and landscape analysis can reduce FTO cycle times from weeks to hours, giving your team actionable clearance data before product launch or procurement decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7238550B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Chip-on-Board and semiconductor packaging patent disputes
Cases involving semiconductor packaging patent assertions in U.S. district courts, including CoB fabrication and related assembly technology disputes filed in the Southern District of New York and peer courts.
What this case signals for the Chip-on-Board semiconductor packaging IP landscape
A rapid settlement in a CoB fabrication dispute highlights active enforcement of legacy semiconductor packaging patents and the risks facing component distributors.
Trading companies and distributors face CoB patent exposure, not just manufacturers
Marubeni America’s role as a trading and distribution entity — rather than a direct semiconductor fabricator — illustrates that patent enforcement in the CoB space can target downstream commercial actors. Companies distributing CoB modules or assemblies sourced from third-party manufacturers should assess their indemnification arrangements and conduct FTO reviews on the products they handle.
88-day resolution suggests pre-existing leverage or licensing framework
Cases that settle within 90 days of filing typically reflect either a strong assertion with clear infringement evidence or a pre-existing licensing relationship that gave both parties a clear valuation anchor. Helix Microinnovations’ rapid resolution with Marubeni America is consistent with an experienced NPE assertion strategy backed by prior licensing activity on US7238550B2.
Helix v Marubeni — key questions answered
Helix Microinnovations LLC asserted US7238550B2, a patent covering methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules, in Case No. 1:24-cv-06394 filed in the Southern District of New York on August 23, 2024.
The case settled. On November 19, 2024 — 88 days after filing — the parties informed Judge Gregory H. Woods of a settlement. The Court issued a conditional order discontinuing the action without prejudice and without costs, subject to a 30-day window for filing a formal Stipulation of Dismissal or seeking reinstatement.
In this context, ‘without prejudice’ means the case is conditionally suspended rather than finally terminated. If the settlement is consummated and no reinstatement is requested within 30 days, the order converts to a final dismissal with prejudice. If the settlement collapses, Helix Microinnovations may restore the action to the active docket without filing a new lawsuit.
No. The case settled before any claim construction, summary judgment, or trial proceeding. US7238550B2 was not adjudicated on validity or infringement grounds, meaning the patent’s legal status is unchanged and it remains available for future enforcement against other parties.
US7238550B2 covers methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules — a semiconductor packaging technique where bare dies are mounted directly onto a substrate. Companies involved in manufacturing, importing, or distributing CoB assemblies, particularly in LED, display, or compact electronics sectors, should assess their freedom-to-operate position against this patent given Helix Microinnovations’ demonstrated willingness to enforce it.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.