Qorvo v. Akoustis Technologies: $38.6M Jury Verdict for BAW Filter IP & Trade Secrets
Qorvo, Inc. brought a combined patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation action against Akoustis Technologies in the District of Delaware, targeting BAW filter products across the 3–7 GHz 5G spectrum. After 959 days of litigation, a jury found Akoustis liable on two patents and 37 willfully stolen trade secrets, resulting in a $38.6M judgment — the bulk tied to exemplary damages for willful misappropriation.
BAW Filter IP War: How Qorvo Secured a $38.6M Trade Secret Verdict
Filed on 4 October 2021 in the District of Delaware before Judge Jon P. McCalla, Qorvo, Inc. brought infringement claims against Akoustis Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary Akoustis, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,735,755 and 7,522,018 alongside trade secret misappropriation claims. The accused products included Akoustis-branded BAW filter devices operating across the 3.5 GHz, 3.6 GHz, 5.2 GHz, and 5.6 GHz bands — directly targeting 5G coexistence and CBRS applications where both companies compete.
The case closed on 20 May 2024 with a jury verdict entirely in Qorvo’s favour. The court entered judgment finding claims 1 and 12 of US7,522,018 and claims 9 and 10 of US9,735,755 infringed, and further finding that Akoustis willfully and maliciously misappropriated 37 Qorvo trade secrets. Total damages were fixed at $38,595,023, comprising $31,315,215 in unjust enrichment, $7,000,000 in exemplary damages reflecting the willfulness finding, and $279,808 in patent infringement damages.
The 959-day duration reflects the complexity of litigating concurrent patent and trade secret claims, each requiring distinct expert testimony and damages methodologies. The willfulness finding is particularly significant: it opened the door to exemplary damages under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and suggests the jury credited Qorvo’s evidence of deliberate misappropriation. What remains unknown from the public record is whether post-trial motions or an appeal will be pursued by Akoustis, and whether any injunctive relief was sought or granted.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 959 days
959-day litigation; above average for complex Delaware IP cases
Jury verdict for Qorvo: what the $38.6M judgment means for both parties
Jury found infringement and willful trade secret theft
A jury verdict on the merits is the most definitive first-instance outcome in US civil litigation. Here, the jury found both patent infringement (specific claims of two asserted patents) and willful, malicious misappropriation of 37 trade secrets. The willfulness finding is legally significant: it triggered exemplary damages of $7M under the DTSA, which permits up to 2x actual damages for wilful misappropriation. The court then entered a formal judgment converting the verdict into an enforceable order.
Judgment on the meritsQorvo’s IP portfolio validated across two technology layers
Qorvo secured infringement findings on four specific patent claims across two patents and vindicated its trade secret protection programme across 37 distinct secrets. The $31.3M unjust enrichment award directly strips Akoustis of the commercial benefit derived from the misappropriation. Qorvo’s patents covering BAW resonator technology now carry adjudicated validity and infringement findings, strengthening their deterrent effect against other competitors in the 5G RF filter space.
Portfolio reinforcedAkoustis faces $38.6M liability and reputational damage
Both Akoustis Technologies, Inc. and Akoustis, Inc. are jointly named in the judgment. The willfulness finding is particularly damaging beyond the financial award: it creates a public record of deliberate IP theft that may affect customer relationships, government contracting eligibility, and future investor confidence. Akoustis retains post-trial motion rights and appeal options to the Federal Circuit, but the jury’s factual findings on willfulness face a high bar for reversal.
Post-trial options remain5G BAW filter sector faces heightened trade secret enforcement risk
This verdict signals that courts will treat RF semiconductor trade secrets — including process know-how, filter design parameters, and manufacturing techniques — with the same seriousness as patented inventions. For 5G component companies hiring from competitors, the willfulness finding and exemplary damages award raise the stakes of talent-driven IP transfer. Companies operating in the 3–7 GHz BAW filter space should audit both their patent clearance and their onboarding protocols for employees from rival firms.
Trade secret risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Qorvo, Inc. | Company | RF semiconductor company — holder of US9735755B2 and US7522018B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Akoustis Technologies, Inc. | Company | BAW filter manufacturer and 5G RF component developer; subsidiary Akoustis, Inc. also namedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Akoustis, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony David Raucci | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric K. Gill | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Klein Ayers | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeremy A. Tigan | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan R. DeFosse | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert M. Masters | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Roy D. Jung | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas J. Carr | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy P. Cremen | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor J. Quist | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachary Alper | Attorney | Counsel for Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Qorvo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David A. Jakopin | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David L. Stanton | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David S. Elkins | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dianne L. Sweeney | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew A. Stanford | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Riccardo Macchiaroli | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert C.F. Perez | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert M. Fuhrer | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ronald P. Golden , III | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ronald S. Lemieux | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Selness | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shani Rivaux | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen B. Brauerman | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Theresa A. Roozen | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Victoria Q. Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Xiaomei Cai | Attorney | Counsel for Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bayard PA | Law Firm | Representing Akoustis Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jon P McCalla | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The judgment language is unusually granular, specifying individual claim numbers for each patent and itemising three distinct damages categories. This structure reflects a jury verdict form that required the panel to make separate findings on patent infringement, trade secret identity, and willfulness — each independently appealable. The $31.3M unjust enrichment figure, rather than a reasonable royalty or lost profits, suggests the jury accepted Qorvo’s theory that Akoustis’s entire commercial gain in the relevant product lines was attributable to the misappropriation. The exemplary damages cap at $7M implies actual trade secret damages of at least $3.5M were separately established, consistent with the unjust enrichment award.
US9735755B2 & US7522018B2 — BAW Resonator Filter Technology
US9,735,755 (application no. US14/876,426) and US7,522,018 (application no. US10/538,110) both protect bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator technology — the foundational component class for high-performance RF bandpass filters used in 5G devices. BAW filters are preferred over SAW alternatives at frequencies above 2.5 GHz due to superior power handling and selectivity, making them critical for 5G NR sub-6 GHz bands including the contested 3.5 GHz and CBRS 3.6 GHz allocations. The two patents cover different aspects of resonator design and fabrication, providing Qorvo with layered protection across the technology stack.
Qorvo and Akoustis are direct competitors in the BAW filter merchant market, supplying components to smartphone OEMs, infrastructure vendors, and IoT device makers. Akoustis positioned itself as a challenger to established players by developing single-crystal BAW technology, claiming performance advantages. The assertion of these patents — combined with 37 trade secrets — suggests Qorvo’s theory was that Akoustis’s competitive ramp was built in part on misappropriated know-how rather than independent innovation. A verdict validating that theory has significant deterrent value across the RF semiconductor ecosystem.
Should you run an FTO against US9735755B2 and US7522018B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing BAW filter products for 5G sub-6 GHz applications — particularly in the 3–7 GHz range — should treat these two patents as live infringement risks. The jury’s infringement findings on specific claims mean those claim constructions have been tested in adversarial litigation. Product teams developing CBRS, 5G NR, or Wi-Fi 6E BAW filters should map their resonator structures against claims 1, 12 of US7,522,018 and claims 9, 10 of US9,735,755 before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can cross-reference your product architecture against the asserted claim elements of both patents, flag design-around opportunities, and surface related Qorvo portfolio patents that may present additional exposure. Given that Qorvo has demonstrated willingness to litigate aggressively — including trade secret claims — a comprehensive clearance search covering both the patent landscape and any personnel-related IP transfer risk is advisable before committing to BAW filter product roadmaps in contested frequency bands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9735755B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar BAW Filter & RF Semiconductor Patent Cases in Delaware
Delaware District Court cases involving BAW and RF semiconductor patent assertions, trade secret misappropriation, and 5G component IP disputes by Qorvo and comparable plaintiffs.
What this case signals for the 5G RF semiconductor IP landscape
Qorvo v. Akoustis is a landmark data point for combined patent and trade secret enforcement in the BAW filter sector.
Willfulness findings dramatically amplify trade secret damages exposure
The $7M exemplary award here dwarfs the $279K patent infringement damages. For 5G component companies, this case demonstrates that trade secret claims — when prosecuted alongside patents — can deliver exponentially larger recoveries, especially where employee movement or reverse engineering can be characterised as deliberate.
Asserting patents and trade secrets together maximises plaintiff leverage
Qorvo’s dual-track strategy — two patents plus 37 trade secrets — created overlapping liability theories and diversified the damages base. Even if patent damages were modest, the trade secret misappropriation claims drove the bulk of the award. IP counsel in the RF semiconductor space should consider whether trade secret claims can supplement patent assertions from the outset.
Qorvo v Akoustis — key questions answered
The jury found in favour of Qorvo on all major claims. Claims 1 and 12 of US7,522,018 and claims 9 and 10 of US9,735,755 were found infringed. Akoustis was also found to have willfully and maliciously misappropriated 37 Qorvo trade secrets. Total damages awarded were $38,595,023, comprising $31,315,215 in unjust enrichment, $7,000,000 in exemplary damages, and $279,808 for patent infringement.
Accused products included Akoustis’s 3.5 GHz 5G coexistence BAW filters, 3.6 GHz CBRS bandpass BAW filters, 5.2 GHz and 5.6 GHz RF BAW filters, and specific product lines identified as AKF-10235, AKF-1252, AKF-1256, AKF-1336, and the 3–7 GHz BAW RF filter series. These products compete directly with Qorvo’s offerings in 5G sub-6 GHz frequency bands.
The jury found that Akoustis Technologies and Akoustis, Inc. were unjustly enriched by misappropriating 37 trade secrets from Qorvo. Critically, the misappropriation was found to be willful and malicious, which under the Defend Trade Secrets Act enabled the court to award exemplary damages — set at $7,000,000 in this case. The unjust enrichment damages for the misappropriation totalled $31,315,215.
The case was filed on 4 October 2021 and closed on 20 May 2024, a duration of 959 days (approximately 2 years and 7 months). This duration is consistent with complex multi-claim IP litigation in Delaware involving both patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation theories, each requiring separate expert testimony and damages analyses.
Qorvo asserted US Patent No. 7,522,018 (application US10/538,110) and US Patent No. 9,735,755 (application US14/876,426). Both patents relate to bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator technology used in RF bandpass filters for wireless communications. BAW filters are essential components in 5G sub-6 GHz devices, and the specific claims found infringed relate to resonator structures and filter architectures applicable to the 3–7 GHz frequency range.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.