Katana Silicon v. GlobalFoundries: $9.2M Jury Verdict After 3.5-Year FinFET Battle
Katana Silicon Technologies LLC secured a $9,200,000 jury verdict against GlobalFoundries over claim 18 of US Patent 6,291,861, covering slanted raised source/drain structures in advanced FinFET nodes. The case ran 1,257 days before Judge Alan Albright in the Western District of Texas, culminating in a four-day jury trial in July 2025.
A FinFET Process Patent Survives Invalidity and Yields $9.2M
On February 24, 2022, Katana Silicon Technologies LLC filed suit against GlobalFoundries, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting infringement of US Patent No. 6,291,861 and US Patent No. 7,402,903. The asserted products include GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm LPP FinFET, 12 nm LP FinFET, and 12 nm LP+ FinFET process nodes — technologies found inside devices ranging from AMD’s Radeon RX 480 GPU to Micron HMC memory controllers. The ‘861 Patent claims a slanted raised source/drain structure that partially overlaps an isolation region to reduce parasitic resistance at reduced device area.
After 1,257 days of litigation before Judge Alan Albright, a jury trial commenced on July 14, 2025. On July 18, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict: GlobalFoundries infringed claim 18 of the ‘861 Patent, while claims 19 and 20 were found not infringed. Critically, all three asserted claims — 18, 19, and 20 — were upheld as valid. The court entered final judgment of $9,200,000 plus interest and costs in favor of Katana. The ‘903 Patent was separately dismissed by stipulation prior to verdict.
The 3.5-year duration reflects the technical complexity of FinFET process litigation and the demanding claim construction disputes typical of semiconductor cases before Judge Albright. The split verdict — infringement found on claim 18 but not claims 19 and 20 — suggests the jury drew careful distinctions between claim scope and specific process implementations. What remains unknown from the public record is the royalty base and rate underpinning the $9.2M award, as well as whether GlobalFoundries will pursue post-trial motions or an appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 1257 days
1,257 days — well above the median W.D. Texas patent trial timeline
Jury finds infringement and $9.2M damages: what the verdict means for both parties
Jury verdict on infringement — claim 18 stands, claims 19–20 do not
The jury returned a split infringement finding: claim 18 of US6291861 was infringed, while claims 19 and 20 were not. All three claims were upheld as valid. A split verdict of this kind typically signals that the jury applied narrow claim construction to claims 19 and 20, finding GlobalFoundries’ process implementations outside their scope. The validity holding is equally significant — it forecloses invalidity arguments at the trial level.
Jury verdict — merits adjudicatedKatana secures $9.2M and a validated patent across all asserted claims
Katana Silicon Technologies prevails with a $9,200,000 final judgment plus interest and costs. Importantly, the jury rejected GlobalFoundries’ invalidity challenge on all three claims, leaving the ‘861 Patent fully intact and enforceable. This strengthens Katana’s position in any future licensing negotiations or follow-on enforcement actions against other foundries or fabless chipmakers using similar FinFET process architectures.
Patent validated — damages awardedGlobalFoundries faces $9.2M judgment with post-trial and appeal options open
GlobalFoundries was found to infringe only claim 18, with claims 19 and 20 decided in its favour — a partial win on scope. However, the $9.2M damages award and the validity ruling represent significant exposure. The court’s judgment expressly preserves GlobalFoundries’ rights to file Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 motions within 28 days, as well as a Federal Circuit appeal. The outcome of post-trial motions remains to be seen.
Appeal window open — 28-day motion deadlineValidated FinFET source/drain patent raises licensing risk across the foundry sector
The jury’s validity finding on all three claims of the ‘861 Patent — and infringement on the core claim 18 — establishes a meaningful litigation precedent for slanted raised S/D structures used in sub-14 nm nodes. Other foundries and fabless companies whose products incorporate similar FinFET architectures should assess their exposure. The $9.2M award, while not disclosed on a per-unit basis, signals a non-trivial royalty base tied to commercial-volume process nodes.
FinFET IP risk — foundry sector watchFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Katana Silicon Technologies, LLC | Company | Semiconductor IP licensing entity — holder of US6291861 covering FinFET source/drain structuresSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | GlobalFoundries, Inc. | Company | GlobalFoundries, Inc. — leading independent semiconductor foundry operating advanced FinFET process nodesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexis Leia Ritzer | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bill Pedersen , III | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bradley David Liddle | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel L. Schmid | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | E. Leon Carter | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Howard Lithaw Lim | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua J. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael C. Pomeroy | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan I. Cox | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Omer Salik | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott W. Breedlove | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth A. Lindner | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Theresa M. Dawson | Attorney | Counsel for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BC Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker & Hostetler LLP | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carter Arnett PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cozen O’connor PC | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DiNovo Price LLP | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP | Law Firm | Representing Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Allan M. Soobert | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chad J. Peterman | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher W. Kennerly | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jack Wesley Hill | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James V. Razick | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph John Rumpler, II | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Stewart | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Christine Ditty | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lowell D. Jacobson | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Pierce Earle | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Soyoung Jung | Attorney | Counsel for GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | J. Wesley Hill, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Paul Hastings LLP | Law Firm | Representing GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Paul Hastings LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing GlobalFoundries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The final judgment is notable for three reasons. First, the jury sustained validity on all asserted claims — a full rejection of GlobalFoundries’ invalidity case. Second, the split on infringement (claim 18 yes; claims 19–20 no) indicates the jury applied rigorous claim-by-claim analysis rather than a blanket finding. Third, the $9.2M figure, entered as a lump sum with interest and costs to follow, suggests a damages model likely built on reasonable royalty rather than lost profits — though the underlying royalty base and rate are not disclosed in the public record. Post-trial motions and a potential Federal Circuit appeal remain live, meaning this judgment may not be final.
US6291861 — Slanted Raised Source/Drain FinFET Process Technology
US Patent No. 6,291,861 (application no. 09/345,414) claims integrated circuit structures in which a slanted raised source/drain partially overlaps an isolation region, reducing parasitic resistance while preserving device area efficiency. This architecture is directly relevant to sub-20 nm FinFET nodes where source/drain engineering is a primary lever for drive current optimisation. The patent’s application date places it at the foundational era of FinFET process development, giving it broad temporal coverage over commercial-scale advanced node manufacturing.
The ‘861 Patent’s claims map directly onto the manufacturing processes used in GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm LPP, 12 nm LP, and 12 nm LP+ FinFET nodes — process families that underpin a substantial share of commercial semiconductor production, including AMD GPU products. For competitors and customers of any foundry operating similar node families, this patent represents a non-trivial infringement vector. The jury’s validity finding removes the most common defensive shield, making the ‘861 Patent a high-priority asset for freedom-to-operate analysis across the foundry IP landscape.
Should you run an FTO against US6291861 and the FinFET S/D patent family?
Any company designing chips for manufacture on 14 nm, 12 nm, or related FinFET process nodes — including fabless chipmakers, IDMs, and foundry IP licensees — should assess exposure to claim 18 of the ‘861 Patent. The jury’s infringement and validity findings apply to a specific process step (slanted raised S/D overlapping isolation) that is widely used across commercial FinFET architectures. Reliance on a foundry indemnity alone may be insufficient given the breadth of parties potentially in scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim 18’s scope against your specific process node parameters, identify prior art not raised at trial that could support a post-grant challenge, and surface related Katana Silicon patent holdings that may present additional exposure. R&D teams evaluating next-generation node tape-outs should run a targeted FTO before committing to a process flow that incorporates slanted raised source/drain formation steps.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6291861B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar FinFET Process Patent Cases in W.D. Texas and the Federal Circuit
Explore comparable semiconductor process patent infringement actions before Judge Albright in W.D. Texas involving FinFET, source/drain, and advanced node manufacturing disputes.
What this verdict signals for the semiconductor process IP landscape
A validated, jury-proven FinFET process patent is a rare and potent enforcement asset — with implications beyond GlobalFoundries.
Validity survived at trial — the ‘861 Patent is now harder to challenge
A jury finding of no invalidity on all three asserted claims raises the estoppel risk for any party that participated in or could have raised similar arguments. Combined with the infringement finding on claim 18, the ‘861 Patent now carries trial-tested enforceability weight that significantly increases its licensing leverage against other foundry customers.
Split verdicts in FinFET cases suggest claim granularity is decisive
The jury found infringement on claim 18 but not claims 19 and 20, consistent with narrow process-level distinctions in FinFET litigation. R&D teams at foundries and fabless companies should audit whether their specific S/D formation steps fall within the scope of surviving claim 18 — particularly in 14 nm, 12 nm LP, and 12 nm LP+ nodes.
Katana v GlobalFoundries — key questions answered
The jury found GlobalFoundries infringed claim 18 of US Patent No. 6,291,861 and awarded Katana Silicon Technologies $9,200,000 in damages. Claims 19 and 20 were found not infringed. Importantly, all three asserted claims — 18, 19, and 20 — were upheld as valid. Final judgment was entered on August 4, 2025.
US6291861 claims integrated circuit structures featuring a slanted raised source/drain that partially overlaps an isolation region, reducing parasitic resistance at reduced device area. This architecture is integral to advanced FinFET nodes (14 nm, 12 nm and below), where source/drain engineering determines drive current and power efficiency. The patent’s broad application date coverage encompasses commercial-scale FinFET production.
The accused products include GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm LPP FinFET, 12 nm LP FinFET, and 12 nm LP+ FinFET process nodes. Specific products identified in the case include AMD’s Radeon RX 480 GPU and the GlobalFoundries 32 nm controller found in the Micron MT43A4G40200NFA-S15 HMC device.
US Patent No. 7,402,903 was dismissed by stipulation prior to the jury verdict (Dkt. 254). The final judgment expressly grants that stipulated dismissal. This means no infringement finding or damages were entered in connection with the ‘903 Patent — the case proceeded to jury trial solely on the ‘861 Patent claims.
Yes. The final judgment expressly preserves GlobalFoundries’ rights to file post-trial motions within 28 days, including Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL motions, Rule 59 new trial motions, motions to amend the judgment, and motions for an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. GlobalFoundries may also appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following resolution of any post-trial motions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.