MOSAID Technologies vs. Intel: Semiconductor Patent Case Transferred to Oregon After 273-Day Texas Proceeding
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | MOSAID Technologies, Inc. v. Intel, Corp. |
| Case Number | 1:25-cv-00677 (TXWD) |
| Court | Western District of Texas (initially); District of Oregon (now) |
| Duration | May 2025 – Feb 2026 273 days |
| Outcome | Transferred — No Merits Determination |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Intel 10nm, Intel 3, Intel 4, Intel 7, Intel FinFET Low Power (22FFL), and Intel 16 Process Nodes |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Well-established Canadian-origin patent licensing and monetization entity with a substantial semiconductor IP portfolio, historically focused on memory, communications, and advanced process technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
One of the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturers. Its process node roadmap represents billions in R&D investment and forms the backbone of its foundry and client computing product lines.
Patents at Issue
This high-stakes case involves eleven United States patents spanning semiconductor device architecture, fabrication processes, and integrated circuit design, central to modern chip manufacturing.
- • US8809940B2 — Semiconductor device structure
- • US7476957B2 — Fabrication process for integrated circuits
- • US9379215B2 — Advanced FinFET technology
- • US8440517B2 — Integrated circuit design methodology
- • US7514757B2 — Memory device architecture
- • US9349655B2 — Power management in semiconductor devices
- • US8338909B2 — High-performance transistor designs
- • US9716091B2 — Wafer manufacturing processes
- • US9564433B2 — Semiconductor packaging and interconnects
- • US7842577B2 — Low-power circuit techniques
- • US9209300B2 — Multi-gate transistor architectures
Designing a semiconductor product?
Check if your process node might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Western District of Texas proceeding closed on February 3, 2026, without a merits determination. The case was **transferred** to the District of Oregon (Case No. 3:26-cv-246), where litigation is ongoing. No damages award, settlement amount, or injunctive relief was issued at the TXWD level.
Key Legal Issues
The Federal Circuit’s intervention restricting Judge Albright’s retention of cases with tenuous Texas connections has significantly impacted venue strategy. The transfer of MOSAID v. Intel, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), demonstrates that even sophisticated plaintiffs using established Texas-filing strategies face genuine transfer risk when defendants mount venue challenges grounded in convenience and access to evidence.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis: Semiconductor IP Risks
This case highlights critical IP risks in semiconductor manufacturing. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand Semiconductor IP Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in semiconductor patents
- Understand process node claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Process Node’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
FinFET and sub-10nm process node designs
11 Asserted Patents
Targeting 6 Intel process nodes
Design-Around Options
Possible for specific architectural claims
✅ Key Takeaways
TXWD remains a contested venue; transfer grants in NPE cases against tech defendants continue at elevated rates post-Federal Circuit intervention.
Search related case law →Eleven-patent assertion strategies in semiconductor cases signal high licensing leverage intent; IPR petitions are the expected near-term Intel countermove in Oregon.
Explore precedents →Chief Judge Albright’s role in TXWD semiconductor cases continues to be monitored for procedural signals.
View court trends →Frequently Asked Questions
MOSAID asserted eleven U.S. patents, including US8809940B2, US7476957B2, US9379215B2, US8440517B2, US7514757B2, US9349655B2, US8338909B2, US9716091B2, US9564433B2, US7842577B2, and US9209300B2, targeting Intel’s advanced semiconductor process nodes.
The Western District of Texas transferred the case to the District of Oregon (3:26-cv-246) on February 5, 2026, consistent with § 1404(a) convenience transfer standards and Federal Circuit precedent tightening venue requirements for patent cases in TXWD.
MOSAID accused Intel’s 10nm, Intel 3, Intel 4, Intel 7, FinFET Low Power (22FFL), and Intel 16 process node families of infringing the asserted patents.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Case Locator — Case 1:25-cv-00677 (TXWD)
- PACER Case Locator — Case 3:26-cv-246 (D. Oregon)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
- Federal Circuit Venue Jurisprudence: In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Tech Companies
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.