MOSAID Technologies vs. Intel: Semiconductor Patent Case Transferred to Oregon
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 (WDTX), 3:26-cv-246 (D. Oregon) |
| Court | Western District of Texas (transferred from) to District of Oregon |
| Duration | May 6, 2025 – Feb 3, 2026 273 days |
| Outcome | Transferred — Litigation Ongoing |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Intel’s 10nm, Intel 4, Intel 7, Intel 3, FinFET Low Power (22FFL), and Intel 16 process nodes |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
MOSAID Technologies, Inc. is a well-established patent licensing and assertion entity with a substantial portfolio concentrated in semiconductor memory and logic technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
Intel Corporation is one of the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturers. Its advanced process nodes represent billions of dollars in R&D investment.
The Patents at Issue
MOSAID asserted 11 U.S. patents spanning semiconductor device architecture and fabrication. These patents generally cover transistor structures, semiconductor device configurations, and fabrication processes directly implicated by Intel’s FinFET-based manufacturing.
- • US8809940B2
- • US7476957B2
- • US9379215B2
- • US8440517B2
- • US7514757B2
- • US9349655B2
- • US8338909B2
- • US9716091B2
- • US9564433B2
- • US7842577B2
- • US9209300B2
Working on advanced semiconductor nodes?
Check if your manufacturing process might infringe these or related patents before launch.
Litigation Timeline & Legal Analysis
Litigation Timeline & Procedural History
MOSAID filed suit on May 6, 2025, in the Western District of Texas — a calculated choice. The WDTX, under Chief Judge Alan D. Albright, has been among the nation’s most active venues for patent litigation.
However, after 273 days — on February 3, 2026 — the case was formally transferred, with the docket officially received by the District of Oregon on February 5, 2026, as Case No. 3:26-cv-246. Judge Alan D. Albright, who presided during the WDTX phase, is one of the most prominent patent judges in the country — his docket management practices and claim construction approaches are closely followed by the patent bar. The case’s transfer out of his court is itself a strategically significant event worth monitoring.
Outcome
The Western District of Texas closed the case on February 3, 2026, with the formal basis of termination being the transfer to the District of Oregon (Case No. 3:26-cv-246). No final judgment on the merits, damages award, or injunctive relief was issued at this stage. The substantive infringement claims — covering 11 patents and six Intel process node families — remain actively pending before the Oregon court.
Venue Transfer Analysis
The transfer from WDTX to Oregon is the defining legal event of this case’s first phase. Intel’s primary operations and relevant R&D activities are headquartered in Santa Clara, California, with significant engineering presence in Oregon (notably, Intel’s Hillsboro campus is one of its largest fabrication and engineering sites). Under In re Apple and subsequent Federal Circuit venue jurisprudence, defendants have increasingly succeeded in transferring cases away from WDTX when key witnesses and evidence are located elsewhere.
For MOSAID, the WDTX filing was a deliberate venue strategy — one that has become more difficult to sustain post-In re Volkswagen and related transfer decisions that strengthened defendants’ ability to invoke § 1404(a). The transfer to Oregon places the case in a venue where Intel has substantial local presence, potentially shifting procedural dynamics in Intel’s favor.
Legal Significance
This case exemplifies the ongoing tension between patent assertion entities and venue selection strategy following the Federal Circuit’s tightening of WDTX transfer standards. The 273-day WDTX tenure — encompassing likely early motions, scheduling orders, and transfer briefing — consumed significant litigation resources without reaching merits adjudication.
With 11 patents at issue, claim construction proceedings in Oregon will be pivotal. The patents cover semiconductor structural and process technologies, meaning construction of terms like “transistor channel region,” “gate dielectric,” or “fin structure” could determine infringement across Intel’s entire advanced node lineup simultaneously.
Strategic Takeaways
For Patent Holders: MOSAID’s multi-patent, multi-product assertion strategy is high-leverage but venue-vulnerable. Patent holders targeting large semiconductor defendants should conduct rigorous § 1404(a) analysis before filing in WDTX, particularly when defendants have established engineering operations in other districts.
For Accused Infringers: Intel’s successful transfer (if transfer was defendant-initiated) demonstrates the ongoing value of venue challenges as a defensive tool. Early investment in transfer motions can reset the litigation dynamic and move cases to more favorable judicial environments.
Industry & Competitive Implications
The MOSAID v. Intel dispute reflects a broader pattern of **semiconductor process node patent enforcement** that R&D and legal teams across the chip industry must monitor.
📋 MOSAID’s Portfolio Approach
MOSAID’s assertion of patents spanning multiple node generations (22FFL through Intel 3) suggests a portfolio theory of infringement: that core structural innovations persist across generational process improvements.
- View all 11 asserted patents in detail
- Analyze claim construction strategies
- Understand portfolio assertion patterns
🛡️ Intel’s Defense Strategy
Defendants must address such potent licensing arguments through both technical design-around strategies and robust IPR petition programs at the USPTO.
- Explore Intel’s IPR challenges
- Analyze prior art for asserted patents
- Identify potential design-around options
High Risk Areas
FinFET structures, Gate-All-Around (GAA) transistors, interconnect architectures
11 Patents at Issue
Covering multiple Intel process node generations
Venue Challenges
Crucial defensive tool for large defendants
✅ Key Takeaways
Venue selection in WDTX remains viable but requires rigorous § 1404(a) risk analysis when defendants have multi-state engineering operations.
Search related case law →Multi-patent assertions against manufacturing processes require coordinated claim construction strategies.
Explore claim construction analytics →Transfer to defendant-friendly venues can reset case dynamics significantly.
Analyze venue transfer trends →MOSAID’s portfolio approach — 11 patents across six product lines — reflects modern PAE assertion strategy targeting process-level technology.
Monitor PAE activity →Monitor Case No. 3:26-cv-246 (D. Oregon) for claim construction orders with industry-wide implications.
Track litigation updates →Advanced node FTO analysis must extend beyond product patents to fabrication process and transistor structure IP.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Enterprise-level patent risk management should include PAE portfolio monitoring in semiconductor domains.
Build IP risk dashboards →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involves 11 U.S. patents, including US8809940B2, US7476957B2, US9379215B2, US8440517B2, US7514757B2, US9349655B2, US8338909B2, US9716091B2, US9564433B2, US7842577B2, and US9209300B2, covering semiconductor device and fabrication technologies.
The case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the District of Oregon (Case No. 3:26-cv-246) on February 3–5, 2026. The specific basis was not publicly detailed in available records, but Intel’s significant engineering operations in Hillsboro, Oregon align with venue transfer standards under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
This case reinforces that advanced process node technologies face substantial patent assertion risk from licensing entities, and that venue strategy remains a critical — and increasingly contested — element of semiconductor patent litigation.
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.
PatSnap IP Intelligence Team
Patent Research & Competitive Intelligence · PatSnap
This analysis was produced by the PatSnap IP Intelligence Team — a group of patent analysts, IP strategists, and data scientists who work daily with PatSnap’s global patent database of over 2 billion structured data points across patents, litigation records, scientific literature, and regulatory filings.
The team specialises in tracking landmark litigation outcomes, translating complex court rulings into actionable IP strategy, and identifying the competitive intelligence implications for R&D and legal teams. All case analysis is grounded in primary sources: official court records, USPTO filings, and Federal Circuit opinions.
Related Resources
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database — Search MOSAID patent numbers
- PACER Case Locator — Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00677 (WDTX) and 3:26-cv-246 (D. Oregon)
- Federal Circuit decisions on WDTX venue transfer standards — In re Apple, In re Volkswagen
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.
📑 Table of Contents
🚀 PatSnap Eureka IP Tools
🔍Novelty Search
Find prior art instantly
Patent Drafting
AI-assisted claim writing
FTO Analysis
Assess infringement risk
Concerned About Your Product?
Don’t wait for litigation. Check your product’s freedom to operate now with AI-powered analysis.
Run FTO for My Product