Invensas & Tessera v. NVIDIA: Five-Patent Semiconductor Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Invensas Corp. and Tessera Advanced Technologies (now Adeia) filed suit against NVIDIA in Delaware in May 2019, asserting five patents covering BGA semiconductor packaging across GPU and SoC product lines including Pascal, Kepler, Maxwell, and Fermi architectures. After 1,587 days and sequential dismissal of two counts before settlement of the remaining three, the case closed in September 2023.
Four-Year Packaging IP Battle: Adeia and NVIDIA Settle All Claims
Invensas Corp. and Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. — both later rebranded as Adeia entities — filed a five-count patent infringement complaint against NVIDIA Corporation in the District of Delaware on May 8, 2019. The asserted patents (US6849946B2, US7064005B2, US6317333B1, US6232231B1, and US5666046A) relate to BGA semiconductor packaging technology. The accused products span multiple generations of NVIDIA GPUs and SoCs, including Pascal, Kepler, Maxwell, and Fermi GPU lines and Tegra K1 and Tegra X1 SoCs.
The case wound down in stages. Count V was dismissed with prejudice in May 2020 and Count IV in October 2020, both at the parties' joint request. The three remaining counts — Counts I, II, and III — were resolved through settlement, with a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed September 11, 2023. The parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs and attorneys' fees in full. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice'; the docket order is styled as a Stipulation of Dismissal of All Remaining Claims filed jointly by the parties.
The case spanned more than four years, suggesting protracted negotiations across multiple claim subsets rather than a single global resolution. The sequential dismissal of two counts in 2020 before a final settlement in 2023 is consistent with a phased licensing or narrowing strategy, though the specific terms of any underlying agreement are not disclosed in the available record. NVIDIA filed no counterclaims, which may have narrowed the dispute's complexity on the defensive side.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1587 days
1,587 days from filing to final dismissal — over four years of active litigation in Delaware
US6849946B2 and four further patents — BGA semiconductor packaging technology
Any company designing, manufacturing, or sourcing GPU, SoC, or high-performance compute packages using BGA substrates should assess exposure to these five patents. The accused products in this case spanned multiple process nodes and GPU generations, indicating the patents are not limited to a single architecture or technology node. Substrate manufacturers, ODMs, and fabless chip designers supplying BGA-packaged products into the US market face the highest risk profile.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation of dismissal records that the parties settled all remaining claims and agreed to dismiss Counts I, II, and III with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. This phrasing confirms the matter is permanently closed on these patents as between Adeia and NVIDIA, but discloses no financial terms, royalty arrangements, or licensing scope. The public record is silent on the specific terms of the underlying settlement.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the resolution means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice ends all five counts permanently
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Adeia cannot re-file the same claims against NVIDIA on these five patents. The parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal covering the three remaining counts (I, II, III), following earlier court-ordered dismissals of Counts IV and V in 2020. No court-entered judgment on the merits was issued; the case closed by mutual agreement formalised through the stipulation.
Permanent bar on re-filingAdeia's claims are extinguished — no re-assertion on these patents against NVIDIA
As the dismissal is with prejudice, Adeia (formerly Invensas and Tessera) cannot pursue NVIDIA again on these five patents for the accused product generations. The parties settled the remaining claims, but the specific financial or licensing terms of that settlement are not disclosed in the available record. Adeia retains the underlying patents and may assert them against other parties.
Claims extinguished vs. NVIDIANVIDIA secures finality on BGA packaging claims without counterclaim exposure
NVIDIA filed no counterclaims upon answering the complaint, limiting its defensive exposure to the five asserted patents. The with-prejudice dismissal closes the litigation permanently on these patents. Each party bears its own costs and fees, meaning NVIDIA faces no awarded damages or fee-shifting. The specific terms of the settlement — including any licensing arrangements — are not disclosed in the public record.
No damages awarded on recordBGA packaging IP remains a live risk for GPU and SoC supply chains
The Adeia portfolio covers foundational BGA semiconductor packaging techniques relevant across the GPU and SoC ecosystem. A settlement resolving claims against NVIDIA does not extinguish risks for other chip designers, board manufacturers, or ODMs using similar packaging architectures. Companies operating in 16nm–40nm process nodes with BGA substrates should assess exposure to the five asserted patents, which remain in force against third parties.
Live risk for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Invensas, Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nvidia, Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian E. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laura E. Muschamp | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Phelps | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael E. Bowlus | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael K. Plimack | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nitin Subhedar | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert E. Freitas | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sylvia Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Garten | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Udit Sood | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ziwei Song | Attorney | Counsel for Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Farnan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Invensas, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alan Limbach | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Asa Wynn-Grant | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian A. Biggs | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carrie L. Williamson | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clayton Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Denise Seastone Kraft | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin E. Larson | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Fowler | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Monica De Lazzari | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sangwon Sung | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Saori Kaji | Attorney | Counsel for Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie, Seelaus & Kraft, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nvidia, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Richard G. Andrews | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the BGA semiconductor packaging IP space
Patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Adeia vs. NVIDIA dispute — tracking portfolio activity, technology trends, and white-space opportunities in semiconductor packaging.
Adeia's BGA packaging portfolio extends well beyond these five patents
Invensas and Tessera — now consolidated under Adeia — have historically maintained large semiconductor packaging patent portfolios with significant continuation and divisional filing activity. R&D teams and IP counsel should map the full Adeia portfolio in BGA substrate and interconnect technology to identify which claim families remain active and which product categories are most exposed beyond the GPU segment.
Adeia portfolio breadthAdvanced packaging filings are accelerating as chiplet and 2.5D/3D adoption grows
BGA packaging patents asserted against NVIDIA's GPU generations reflect a broader IP landscape that is rapidly expanding as chiplet architectures, 2.5D interposers, and 3D stacking gain commercial traction. Filing activity in advanced semiconductor packaging — including through-silicon vias, fan-out wafer-level packaging, and hybrid bonding — has grown substantially, signalling a new wave of IP risk for product teams designing next-generation compute packages.
Advanced packaging IP trendNVIDIA's own packaging IP filings reflect growing in-house innovation in substrate design
NVIDIA has expanded its own patent filing activity in packaging-adjacent domains, including interposer design, thermal management for GPU packages, and high-bandwidth memory integration. Mapping NVIDIA's internal packaging IP portfolio reveals both defensive depth and potential cross-licensing leverage in future disputes with packaging IP licensors. R&D teams benchmarking against NVIDIA should track continuation filings in this area.
NVIDIA packaging IP depthWhite space remains in next-gen BGA substrate innovations for AI accelerator packaging
While legacy BGA patents cover foundational interconnect structures, the specific packaging requirements of large-die AI accelerators — including co-packaged optics, embedded power delivery, and ultra-dense solder ball arrays — remain areas of active filing with identifiable white space. Companies investing in novel substrate materials or fine-pitch BGA variants for AI compute may find patentable differentiation outside existing Adeia claim coverage.
AI accelerator packaging IP gapSimilar BGA semiconductor packaging patent disputes in Delaware District Court
Explore related patent infringement cases involving BGA semiconductor packaging technology and semiconductor IP licensing enforcement filed in Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the semiconductor packaging IP landscape
A four-year, five-patent dispute against one of the world's largest GPU designers confirms that BGA packaging IP carries real enforcement weight.
Phased dismissals suggest a complex, iterative negotiation with NVIDIA
Two of five counts were dropped in 2020 — before the bulk of discovery — and the remaining three settled three years later. This pattern is consistent with a licensing negotiation that narrowed scope over time rather than a single deal. IP teams monitoring Adeia enforcement activity should model multi-year timelines when assessing dispute exposure.
No counterclaims from NVIDIA is a notable strategic data point
NVIDIA's decision not to assert counterclaims — including no invalidity challenges pursued as counterclaims in this suit — may reflect confidence in a negotiated resolution or a calculated avoidance of jury risk on validity. It limits the public record on whether these patents are vulnerably invalid, leaving their enforceability intact for future targets.
Invensas v Nvidia — key questions answered
The plaintiffs asserted five patents: US6849946B2, US7064005B2, US6317333B1, US6232231B1, and US5666046A. All relate to BGA semiconductor packaging technology. The accused products included NVIDIA's Pascal, Kepler, Maxwell, and Fermi GPU generations and Tegra K1 and Tegra X1 SoCs.
The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the dismissal is final and the plaintiffs cannot re-file the same claims against NVIDIA. Two counts were dismissed earlier in 2020 at joint request; the remaining three counts were resolved via settlement, with a stipulation of dismissal filed September 11, 2023. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and fees.
No. The docket record indicates NVIDIA filed an answer to the complaint on July 1, 2019 but did not assert any counterclaims. This means no invalidity or unenforceability counterclaims were litigated in this action as a matter of public record.
The accused products included NVIDIA's 16nm Pascal GPUs, 28nm Kepler GPUs, 28nm Maxwell GPUs, 40nm Fermi GPUs, 28nm Tegra K1 SoCs, and 20nm Tegra X1 SoCs. The complaint also referenced BGA solder ball and substrate structures used in these packages.
The 1,587-day duration from filing (May 2019) to final dismissal (September 2023) is consistent with the complexity of a five-patent, multi-product infringement action. Two counts were dismissed in stages during 2020 before the remaining three were settled in 2023. The specific reasons for the extended timeline are not disclosed in the available public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.