Helix Microinnovations v. Microchip Technology: CoB Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Helix Microinnovations LLC asserted US7238550B2 — covering methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules — against semiconductor giant Microchip Technology Inc. in Delaware. The case closed after just 111 days when Helix voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before Microchip filed any answer or dispositive motion.
CoB module patent suit exits Delaware in under four months
On 21 August 2024, Helix Microinnovations LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-00962) against Microchip Technology Inc., one of the world’s largest microcontroller and mixed-signal IC suppliers. The sole patent asserted was US7238550B2, which covers methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules — a packaging technology that attaches bare semiconductor dies directly to a printed circuit board. Judge Maryellen Noreika was assigned to the case.
The case closed on 10 December 2024 — just 111 days after filing — when Helix filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), citing that Microchip Technology had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. This procedural posture made the dismissal self-executing and without prejudice as a matter of right, requiring no court order and leaving the underlying patent claims unresolved on the merits.
The sub-four-month duration and pre-answer timing are consistent with either a licensing settlement reached outside the formal record or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff — the public docket does not disclose which. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Helix retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Microchip Technology or to pursue other potential infringers, meaning US7238550B2 remains an active enforcement risk for the CoB packaging sector.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 111 days
111 days — resolved before defendant’s first responsive pleading was due
Voluntarily dismissed: what a without-prejudice exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a self-executing dismissal right
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing and is without prejudice by default. No judicial approval is required, and the court enters no ruling on the merits — the case simply ceases to exist in its current form.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice confirmed — refiling remains possible
Helix’s notice expressly states the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff is not barred from bringing the same claims again. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would act as a final judgment on the merits and prevent refiling. The public record is unambiguous here: Helix explicitly invoked the without-prejudice default under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), preserving its enforcement options on US7238550B2.
Refiling right preservedMicrochip exits without an invalidity or non-infringement ruling
Microchip Technology never filed an answer, counterclaim, or invalidity challenge, so no court has assessed the merits of the infringement allegations or the validity of US7238550B2. While Microchip avoids any adverse judgment here, it also gains no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity — leaving it potentially exposed to a future refiling by Helix or a parallel suit against its CoB-related product lines.
No invalidity ruling obtainedUS7238550B2 remains an active enforcement risk for CoB suppliers
Because no court has ruled on infringement or validity, US7238550B2 retains its presumption of validity. Any company designing, supplying, or integrating Chip-on-Board modules — particularly in markets Microchip Technology serves, such as automotive, industrial IoT, and consumer electronics — should treat this patent as a live FTO concern. The pre-answer dismissal timeline suggests a potential confidential resolution, but nothing in the public record confirms this.
Patent validity unchallengedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Helix Microinnovations LLC | Company | Semiconductor IP licensing entity — holder of US7238550B2 covering CoB module fabricationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Microchip Technology, Inc. | Company | Microchip Technology Inc. — global microcontroller, FPGA, and mixed-signal semiconductor supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Antranig N. Garibian | Attorney | Counsel for Helix Microinnovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garibian Law Offices, PC | Law Firm | Representing Helix Microinnovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Russell | Attorney | Counsel for Microchip Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shaw Keller LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microchip Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with explicit reference to Microchip Technology’s pre-answer status, confirming the without-prejudice character as a matter of right rather than judicial discretion. Critically, no court has assessed infringement, validity, or claim construction — US7238550B2 exits this proceeding with its presumption of validity entirely intact. The phrasing leaves all substantive questions open and imposes no estoppel on either party.
US7238550B2 — Methods and Apparatus for Fabricating Chip-on-Board Modules
US7238550B2 (application number US10/371800) covers methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules — a packaging approach in which bare semiconductor dies are bonded and wire-connected directly to a printed circuit board substrate, eliminating the conventional IC package. CoB technology is valued for its compact form factor, thermal efficiency, and cost reduction in high-volume applications. The patent addresses fabrication-level process steps, meaning its claims potentially touch manufacturing workflows rather than only finished product configurations.
For the semiconductor packaging sector, a fabrication-method patent of this type presents a broad enforcement surface: it can be asserted against IC manufacturers, EMS providers, ODMs, and even end-product OEMs who specify CoB assembly in their bills of process. Microchip Technology’s diverse portfolio — spanning microcontrollers, FPGAs, memory, and analog ICs often integrated via CoB in automotive, industrial, and consumer IoT applications — made it a commercially significant first target. With no invalidity ruling on record, the patent retains full enforcement potential against subsequent targets.
Should your team run an FTO against US7238550B2?
Any organisation specifying, performing, or supplying Chip-on-Board module fabrication should treat US7238550B2 as an active FTO concern. This includes semiconductor manufacturers integrating CoB packaging in automotive ECUs, industrial controllers, or IoT edge devices; EMS providers running CoB assembly lines; and OEMs who define CoB-based module architectures in product specifications. The patent’s fabrication-method claims mean product teardowns alone are insufficient — process flow analysis is required.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7238550B2 against your specific fabrication process steps, identify prior art that may inform an invalidity argument, and surface related continuations or family members that could extend the enforcement perimeter. Because no claim construction has been issued in this case, early-stage FTO analysis is particularly valuable before a court narrows or broadens the claim scope in any future proceeding.
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 cases
Explore related patent infringement actions involving semiconductor packaging and CoB fabrication methods filed in Delaware District Court and comparable jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the Chip-on-Board packaging IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal in Delaware rarely signals a clean exit — it typically marks a pivot in enforcement strategy or a confidential resolution.
Pre-answer exits are classic indicators of licensing activity
When a plaintiff dismisses without prejudice before the defendant answers, it frequently suggests that discussions occurred off the docket — potentially resulting in a licensing agreement. IP teams at CoB module suppliers should monitor whether Helix pursues additional defendants, which would confirm an active assertion campaign around US7238550B2.
Delaware remains the jurisdiction of choice for semiconductor patent assertions
Helix’s filing in the District of Delaware is consistent with the forum’s established efficiency and patent-law depth. Companies in the semiconductor packaging space should ensure their FTO and litigation-readiness programmes account for Delaware-filed actions, where cases can move quickly even before trial.
Helix v Microchip — key questions answered
Helix Microinnovations filed a notice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissing its infringement action against Microchip Technology without prejudice. Because Microchip had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-executing and required no court order. Without prejudice means Helix retains the right to refile the same claims in the future — no merits ruling was issued.
The sole patent asserted was US7238550B2 (application No. US10/371800), which covers methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules. CoB packaging attaches bare semiconductor dies directly to a PCB substrate. The patent addresses fabrication-level process steps, giving it a potentially broad enforcement reach across manufacturers and EMS providers.
The case resolved in 111 days, before Microchip filed any responsive pleading. The public record does not disclose the reason. The pre-answer timing is consistent with either a confidential licensing agreement reached off the docket or a strategic decision by Helix to reassess its enforcement approach. No settlement terms or licensing fees are publicly available.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) carries no merits adjudication. The court issued no claim construction, no invalidity finding, and no non-infringement ruling. US7238550B2 exits the case with its presumption of validity fully intact, and Microchip Technology obtained no declaratory judgment protecting it from future assertions of the same patent.
Companies fabricating or specifying Chip-on-Board modules should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US7238550B2, focusing on process-level claim mapping rather than product configurations alone. Given the without-prejudice dismissal, Helix may refile against Microchip or pursue other defendants. Monitoring Helix Microinnovations LLC’s litigation activity and reviewing related patent family members is advisable for any participant in the CoB packaging supply chain.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.