Helix Microinnovations v. ON Semiconductor: Chip-on-Board Patent Dispute Settled
Helix Microinnovations LLC filed suit against ON Semiconductor Corporation in the Western District of Texas asserting US7238550B2, covering methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules. The parties reached a confidential settlement and filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in just 172 days — before the case progressed to claim construction.
A fast-moving Chip-on-Board patent dispute resolved by mutual settlement
On August 4, 2024, Helix Microinnovations LLC filed a patent infringement action against ON Semiconductor Corporation in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00402), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The suit asserted US7238550B2, which covers methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules — a semiconductor packaging technology in which bare dies are mounted directly onto a substrate. Helix, represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, alleged that ON Semiconductor’s products or processes infringed that patent.
The case closed on January 23, 2025, via a stipulated dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Under the agreed terms, all of Helix’s claims against ON Semiconductor were dismissed with prejudice — permanently barring Helix from re-filing the same claims — while ON Semiconductor’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving its ability to reassert them in any future proceeding. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, fees, and expert expenses, indicating no monetary fee-shifting.
At 172 days, the resolution is notably swift, suggesting the parties reached commercial terms before significant motion practice or claim construction proceedings. The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without prejudice — is a common settlement pattern that reflects ON Semiconductor’s negotiating leverage to preserve optionality on its counterclaims. The precise financial terms of any settlement agreement remain confidential and are not reflected in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 172 days
172 days — resolved well under the median W.D. Texas patent case duration, suggesting early settlement pressure
Settled and dismissed: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a fully consensual, court-filed dismissal
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures and is self-executing — it becomes effective upon filing, without requiring a court order on the merits. This mechanism is the standard vehicle for settlement-driven closures in U.S. patent cases and signals that both sides agreed to exit the litigation entirely rather than pursue adjudication.
Consensual exit, no merits rulingPlaintiff out with prejudice — defendant’s counterclaims preserved
Helix’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice, meaning they are permanently extinguished and cannot be re-filed. ON Semiconductor’s counterclaims, however, were dismissed without prejudice — leaving the door open for reassertion if warranted. This asymmetry is typical where the defendant negotiates a clean exit while retaining defensive optionality, and may reflect ON Semiconductor’s stronger litigation posture at the time of settlement.
Plaintiff claims extinguishedHelix receives undisclosed terms but loses the right to relitigate
While any financial consideration paid to Helix is confidential, the with-prejudice dismissal of its claims signals a definitive end to enforcement of US7238550B2 against ON Semiconductor. Helix cannot bring the same infringement claims again in any U.S. federal court. Whether the settlement included a licence, lump-sum payment, or other commercial arrangement is not disclosed in the public record.
No re-filing against ON SemiSwift settlement limits discovery exposure for ON Semiconductor
By resolving before claim construction, ON Semiconductor avoided potentially adverse Markman rulings and minimised discovery costs. Each-party-bears-own-costs arrangements are consistent with negotiated settlements where neither party concedes liability. For the broader Chip-on-Board packaging sector, the case’s rapid closure means US7238550B2 received no judicial claim interpretation — leaving its scope legally untested.
No Markman ruling issuedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Helix Microinnovations LLC | Company | Semiconductor IP licensing entity — holder of US7238550B2 covering Chip-on-Board module fabricationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ON Semiconductor Corporation | Company | ON Semiconductor Corporation — global power and signal management semiconductor manufacturerSearch 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 | Mark A. Speegle | Attorney | Counsel for ON Semiconductor CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger J. Fulghum | Attorney | Counsel for ON Semiconductor CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing ON Semiconductor CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) reflects a fully negotiated exit — neither party received a merits adjudication. The asymmetric structure (plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without prejudice) is commercially significant: Helix permanently waives its right to assert the same claims against ON Semiconductor, while ON Semiconductor retains the ability to pursue its counterclaims in any subsequent proceeding. No liability, damages, or claim construction findings were entered by the court.
US7238550B2 — Methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules
US7238550B2 (application number US10/371800) covers methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules, a semiconductor packaging approach in which bare semiconductor dies are attached and wire-bonded directly onto a printed circuit board or substrate rather than into a discrete package. The patent’s claims address fabrication process steps and structural configurations specific to CoB assembly, placing it squarely in the advanced packaging and heterogeneous integration domain — a technically active area with growing commercial significance.
CoB technology is widely used in LED lighting, imaging sensors, power electronics, and compact consumer electronics where size, thermal performance, and cost are primary drivers. With semiconductor packaging innovation accelerating — particularly around chiplet architectures and system-in-package designs — patents covering CoB fabrication methods carry strategic relevance beyond their original filing context. US7238550B2 has now been asserted against one of the industry’s major analogue and power semiconductor manufacturers, signalling that IP licensors view the patent as commercially viable against modern manufacturing processes.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US7238550B2?
Any organisation designing, manufacturing, or procuring products that incorporate Chip-on-Board module assembly — including LED modules, image sensor arrays, power converter assemblies, or compact RF/analogue sub-systems — should treat US7238550B2 as a relevant FTO consideration. Because no court has construed the claims in this litigation, the patent’s exact scope remains legally ambiguous, widening the practical risk window for product teams.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US7238550B2’s independent claim elements against your specific CoB fabrication process steps and structural configurations, identify prosecution history disclaimers that may narrow scope, and surface prior art that could support an invalidity argument if licensing pressure arises. Early FTO analysis is substantially cheaper than litigation response, and in a technology domain with active assertion activity, proactive clearance is a measurable risk-reduction investment.
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 technology filed in W.D. Texas and other key patent venues.
What this case signals for the semiconductor packaging IP landscape
This fast settlement by a focused IP licensor against a major semiconductor manufacturer illustrates recurring enforcement dynamics in packaging technology.
Chip-on-Board patents remain viable enforcement tools against large OEMs
The filing of US7238550B2 against a company of ON Semiconductor’s scale — and its swift settlement — suggests that CoB fabrication patents carry enough commercial value to compel licensing discussions. Companies operating in advanced packaging should audit their CoB process IP exposure before receiving a demand letter.
Judge Albright’s docket continues to attract NPE filings despite venue shifts
The W.D. Texas, Waco Division under Judge Albright remains a strategically attractive venue for patent assertion entities. Even as docket-management orders have reduced its dominance, the court’s familiarity with patent procedure and efficient scheduling continues to incentivise NPE plaintiffs to file there.
Helix v ON — key questions answered
The case settled. On January 23, 2025, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Helix’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice; ON Semiconductor’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Helix asserted US7238550B2 (application no. US10/371800), which covers methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board (CoB) modules — a semiconductor packaging technique in which bare dies are mounted directly onto a substrate or PCB.
Helix’s claims being dismissed with prejudice means it permanently cannot re-file the same infringement claims against ON Semiconductor in any U.S. court. ON Semiconductor’s counterclaims being dismissed without prejudice means the company retains the right to reassert those claims in future proceedings if circumstances warrant.
Yes, Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas presided over this case. His docket remains a notable venue for patent assertion entities due to the court’s established patent procedures and scheduling efficiency, which can create settlement pressure on defendants early in litigation.
The 172-day duration suggests resolution before significant motion practice or claim construction proceedings. Early settlement in W.D. Texas patent cases typically indicates that the defendant assessed litigation cost and commercial risk and determined that a negotiated exit was preferable to the uncertainty and expense of a Markman hearing and potential trial.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.