Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Helix Microinnovations v. Penguin Solutions | Patent Lawsuit 1:25-cv-01581

Helix Microinnovations LLC v. Penguin Solutions, Inc.

1:25-cv-01581 D. Del. Closed US7238550B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 31 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 20 Apr 2026, with US7238550B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7238550B2
Application no.
US10/371800
Case no.
1:25-cv-01581
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Colm F. Connolly
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
31 Dec 2025 – 20 Apr 2026
Duration
110 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
Methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:25-cv-01581, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7238550B2 Inactive App. US10/371800

Methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules

An improved method for fabricating Chip-on-Board memory modules using partially-defective memory chips or a combination of partially-defective and flawless memory parts, comprises mounting unpackaged (or a combination of packaged and unpackaged) memory parts to a printed circuit board using one or more selectively settable materials, testing and patching the memory parts, and providing a protective cover after a suitable combination of memory parts and patches produces a fully-functional memory module. Also, a new set of printed circuit boards designed to allow fabrication of memory modules using single-bit patching, any-bit patching, and DDR technology with unpackaged memory parts. In a preferred embodiment, the method and printed circuit boards mentioned above are combined to produce a number of low-cost memory modules using modern, available partially-defective and flawless memory parts.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
3 Jul 2007
Earliest priority
26 Feb 2002
Est. expiry
21 Nov 2023
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H01L21/44H01L21/48H01L21/50H10P14/40H01L23/00H05K1/18H05K3/22
Examiner
ZARNEKE, DAVID A.
US7238550B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7238550B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Helix Microinnovations LLC hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant Cree LED, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”

Case 1:25-cv-01581 · D. Del. · closed 20 April 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:25-cv-01581?

1:25-cv-01581 is a patent infringement action brought by Helix Microinnovations LLC against Penguin Solutions, Inc., filed on 31 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 20 April 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-01581?

US7238550B2 (“Methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules”), assigned to HELIX MICRO INNOVATIONS LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Methods and apparatus for fabricating Chip-on-Board modules.

How was case 1:25-cv-01581 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Helix Microinnovations LLC hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant Cree LED, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 1:25-cv-01581 take?

110 calendar days, from filing on 31 Dec 2025 to closure on 20 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-01581?

Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly presided. Brian E. Lutness is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Helix Microinnovations. Daniel Marcus Attaway appears for defendant Penguin Solutions.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:25-cv-01581 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-01581 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.