Imberatek v. Apple: 9-Patent Chip Packaging Suit Transferred After 392 Days
Imberatek LLC filed suit against Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting nine patents spanning chip packaging, electronics assembly, and semiconductor interconnect technology — directly targeting Apple’s A Series and M Series chips. After 392 days of litigation, the case was terminated via transfer, following a contested venue dispute in which Apple’s declarant Dr. Young Jeon was deposed.
Nine-Patent Chip Suit Against Apple Exits Texas on Venue Transfer
On February 5, 2024, Imberatek LLC filed a patent infringement action against Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Robert Pitman. The complaint asserted nine issued U.S. patents — including US11071207B2, US7732909B2, US8368201B2, US7989944B2, US9107324B2, US8238113B2, US8222723B2, US7609527B2, and US11716816B2 — covering chip packaging, semiconductor interconnect structures, and electronics assembly methods. The accused products were Apple’s A Series and M Series chips, the silicon at the heart of iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers.
The case closed on March 3, 2025 with a basis of termination recorded as ‘Case Transferred.’ Before transfer, the parties litigated a heavily contested motion to transfer venue filed by Apple. That dispute generated deposition testimony from Apple’s declarant Dr. Young Jeon, a subsequent court-ordered supplemental filing by Imberatek, and Apple’s opposed motion for leave to respond — indicating sharp disagreement over the factual record supporting the proper venue. The transfer means no merits ruling was issued in the Western District; the litigation is expected to continue in the receiving court.
A duration of 392 days before transfer is notable — many venue disputes in W.D. Texas resolve faster, suggesting the Jeon deposition and supplemental briefing cycle added meaningful delay. The contested nature of Apple’s motion for leave, opposed by Imberatek, suggests both sides viewed the venue question as strategically significant. The public record does not disclose the identity of the receiving district, the court’s formal transfer order reasoning, or whether any claim construction or merits briefing occurred before transfer.
Filing to Case Transferred in 392 days
392 days in W.D. Texas — longer than many transferred cases before venue is resolved
Case transferred: what a venue change means for both parties
Transfer is procedural — the merits fight moves, not ends
A ‘Case Transferred’ termination means the Western District of Texas concluded it was not the appropriate venue and sent the matter to a different federal district. No ruling on infringement, validity, or damages was issued. All nine asserted patents remain in dispute. The litigation restarts in the receiving court, which must re-establish its own schedule, potentially revisit pending motions, and conduct its own claim construction process.
No merits ruling issuedImberatek must re-litigate venue strategy in new district
For Imberatek, transfer is a setback in forum selection but not a loss on the merits. The nine patents remain asserted and the accused Apple A/M Series chips remain the target. However, Imberatek now faces a new court’s local rules, potentially less plaintiff-friendly docket practices than W.D. Texas, and the cost of re-establishing litigation posture. The 392-day delay before transfer may also affect litigation funding and scheduling leverage.
Patents still in playApple secures preferred forum — a significant tactical win
For Apple, winning a transfer motion is a meaningful early victory. The receiving court is likely closer to Apple’s principal place of business or witnesses, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) convenience factors. Apple’s investment in deposing Dr. Jeon and contesting Imberatek’s venue supplement paid off. The new forum may offer different claim construction norms and jury pools, both factors Apple likely weighed before filing its transfer motion.
Forum advantage securedNine-patent portfolio targeting Apple silicon remains active risk
With nine patents covering chip packaging and semiconductor interconnect technology asserted against A Series and M Series chips, the commercial stakes remain high wherever the case proceeds. Apple’s entire device ecosystem — iPhone, iPad, Mac — depends on the accused chips. For the semiconductor and consumer electronics sector, the breadth of the patent portfolio and the identity of the accused products make the receiving court’s eventual claim construction rulings commercially significant.
High-stakes IP still unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Imberatek, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11071207B2 and 8 chip packaging and semiconductor interconnect patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Apple Inc. — designer of A Series and M Series chips used across iPhone, iPad, and Mac product linesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alan M. Grimaldi | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett Aaron Mangrum | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clark S. Bakewell | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cliff Allan Maier | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Courtney M. Krawice | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James A. Fussell , III | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julia Haines | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark D. Siegmund | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michelle N. Webster | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Reginald R. Goeke | Attorney | Counsel for Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mayer Brown LLP | Law Firm | Representing Imberatek, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Francis J. Albert | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joy B. Kete | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathryn A. Quisenberry | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Pierce Earle | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger Allen Denning | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Seth M. Sproul | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Burbank | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven J. Wingard | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson, PC | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text in the public record reflects Apple’s motion for leave to file a reply to Imberatek’s venue supplement — not a merits ruling. This procedural posture confirms the case terminated on venue grounds before any infringement or validity determination. The contested nature of the Jeon deposition characterization suggests both parties understood the transfer motion was outcome-determinative for forum selection. No damages, injunction, or claim construction order was issued in the Western District of Texas.
US11071207B2 — Chip packaging and semiconductor interconnect portfolio
The nine asserted patents — anchored by US11071207B2 (App. No. 17/005527) and including patents dating back to application filings as early as US7609527B2 (App. No. 11/907795) — form a multi-generational portfolio covering chip packaging structures, semiconductor interconnect architectures, and electronics assembly techniques. The portfolio spans roughly fifteen years of continuation and related filing activity, suggesting a deliberate strategy to capture evolving chip integration methods across successive semiconductor generations.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its targeting of chip packaging — the physical and electrical integration layer that is increasingly central to performance in Apple’s A Series and M Series chips, which use advanced packaging to achieve high memory bandwidth and thermal efficiency. As chipmakers shift competitive differentiation from node geometry to packaging innovation, packaging IP portfolios become higher-value enforcement assets. Imberatek’s nine-patent assertion signals that packaging IP is now a primary vector for monetisation against leading silicon designers.
Should you run an FTO against US11071207B2 and the Imberatek chip packaging portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating advanced chip packaging — including fan-out wafer-level packaging, flip-chip BGA, chiplet integration, or multi-die modules — should assess exposure against Imberatek’s nine-patent portfolio. The accused Apple A/M Series products confirm the portfolio is being enforced against high-volume, high-margin consumer silicon. Fabless chip designers, ODMs, and contract manufacturers supplying packaging services are all potentially within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the nine asserted patents against your product architecture, identify relevant prior art, and flag claim terms most likely to be contested at claim construction. With the case now in a new district, monitoring the receiving court’s Markman schedule and any post-transfer filings is critical. Eureka’s litigation tracking tools surface new docket events automatically, keeping your FTO analysis current as the case evolves.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11071207B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar chip packaging and semiconductor interconnect patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving multi-patent chip packaging and semiconductor interconnect portfolios asserted against consumer electronics defendants in U.S. district courts, including W.D. Texas.
What this case signals for the semiconductor IP enforcement landscape
A nine-patent assault on Apple’s core silicon, contested venue, and a transfer — each element carries lessons for chip IP strategy.
Venue disputes in chip cases are worth contesting early and hard
Apple’s successful transfer motion — requiring a deposition, supplemental briefing, and opposed leave motion — shows defendants are willing to invest significantly in forum disputes. For patent holders targeting large tech defendants, anticipating a transfer motion and front-loading venue evidence is now essential practice in W.D. Texas chip cases.
Broad multi-patent portfolios create docket complexity that can delay transfer resolution
Nine patents spanning chip packaging, interconnects, and assembly methods created a complex docket that took 392 days to reach a transfer disposition. Defendants and plaintiffs alike should model how portfolio breadth interacts with venue motion timing — broader assertions may inadvertently delay transfer, affecting both parties’ cost projections.
Imberatek v Apple — key questions answered
Imberatek LLC filed a nine-patent infringement suit against Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas on February 5, 2024, targeting Apple’s A Series and M Series chips. After 392 days, the case was terminated on March 3, 2025 via transfer to another federal district, following a contested venue dispute that included the deposition of Apple declarant Dr. Young Jeon. No merits ruling was issued.
Imberatek asserted nine patents: US11071207B2, US7732909B2, US8368201B2, US7989944B2, US9107324B2, US8238113B2, US8222723B2, US7609527B2, and US11716816B2. The portfolio covers chip packaging structures, semiconductor interconnect architectures, and electronics assembly methods, targeting Apple’s A Series and M Series chips.
The public record indicates Apple filed a motion to transfer venue, supported by declarant testimony from Dr. Young Jeon. Imberatek contested the motion and deposed Dr. Jeon, filing a court-ordered supplement. Apple also sought leave to respond to that supplement. The court ultimately granted transfer, though the specific transfer order reasoning and receiving district are not detailed in the available public record.
A transfer on venue grounds is purely procedural — all nine Imberatek patents remain asserted and the accused Apple A/M Series chips remain the subject of the litigation. The case continues in the receiving federal district court, which will set its own schedule, conduct claim construction, and adjudicate the merits. No dismissal or merits ruling occurred in W.D. Texas.
The nine-patent Imberatek portfolio covers chip packaging and semiconductor interconnect technologies that are broadly relevant to advanced packaging techniques including fan-out, flip-chip, and chiplet integration. The enforcement action against Apple’s high-volume A/M Series chips signals active monetisation intent. Companies designing or procuring advanced chip packaging should conduct FTO analysis against these patents, particularly US11071207B2 and the portfolio’s earlier-priority members.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.