Sentient Sensors v. Xilinx: Dismissed With Prejudice After 1,528 Days
Sentient Sensors, LLC filed suit against Xilinx Incorporated in the District of Delaware in February 2022, asserting US patent 6,938,177 against the Zynq 7000, Zynq UltraScale+, Kria, and Versal SoC product families. The action ran for 1,528 days before the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Zynq SoC Patent Dispute Ends in Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice
Sentient Sensors, LLC commenced this infringement action on 8 February 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint asserted US Patent No. 6,938,177 against Xilinx Incorporated's Zynq 7000 SoC (ZC702, ZC704, ZC706), Zynq UltraScale+ (ZCU102, ZCU104, ZCU106), Zynq-based Kria products, Versal products, and associated development kits — a broad sweep of Xilinx's flagship programmable SoC and adaptive compute platforms.
The case closed on 16 April 2026 when the parties filed a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed with Prejudice; the docket order states that each party shall bear its own costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, meaning Sentient Sensors cannot reassert the same claims under US6938177B1 against Xilinx in a future action.
The case ran for over four years — a duration that suggests substantive litigation activity before resolution. The parties' decision to bear their own costs removes any fee-shifting signal that might indicate who held the stronger position at the point of resolution. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement to stipulate dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1528 days
1,528 days — over four years from filing to dismissal in D. Del.
US6938177B1 — programmable SoC control and logic technology
Any organisation developing, commercialising, or integrating products in the programmable SoC, FPGA, or adaptive compute domain — particularly architectures resembling Xilinx's Zynq or Versal families — should assess exposure to US6938177B1. The dismissal here is party-specific to Xilinx; the patent holder retains full enforcement rights against all other parties. Development kit makers and IP licensors building on Zynq-compatible cores face equivalent risk.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation is framed as a bilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) agreement, requiring consent from all appearing parties and producing an immediately effective dismissal without a separate court order. The with-prejudice designation makes the dismissal a final disposition on the merits as to Xilinx, and the mutual cost-bearing clause means no fee-shifting was sought or awarded. The underlying reasons driving the parties to this resolution after more than four years of litigation are not stated in the available public record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires the signatures of all parties who have appeared. When filed with prejudice, it operates as a final judgment on the merits — the court retains no further jurisdiction over the dismissed claims. Sentient Sensors cannot re-file suit against Xilinx asserting the same patent claims that were before the court.
Final, merits-barring dismissalSentient Sensors loses the right to re-assert US6938177B1 against Xilinx
The with-prejudice designation extinguishes Sentient Sensors' ability to bring the same infringement claims against Xilinx in any subsequent proceeding. While the patent itself remains in force against third parties, the res judicata effect of the dismissal forecloses this specific defendant. Whether any consideration passed between the parties is not disclosed in the available public record.
Claim barred against XilinxXilinx's Zynq and Versal product lines cleared of this specific claim
Xilinx (now part of AMD) obtains finality with respect to Sentient Sensors' assertions under US6938177B1 across the named Zynq 7000, UltraScale+, Kria, and Versal product families. The parties bear their own costs, so no fee-shifting award is recorded. The merits of the infringement or validity dispute were not adjudicated on the public record.
Products cleared from this actionUS6938177B1 remains a live risk for other SoC and FPGA vendors
The dismissal is party-specific: US6938177B1 retains its presumption of validity and is enforceable against any third party not covered by this proceeding. FPGA, SoC, and adaptive compute vendors operating in adjacent spaces to Xilinx's Zynq and Versal architectures should treat the patent as an active portfolio asset. No invalidity finding or claim construction ruling entered on the public record to narrow the patent's reach.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sentient Sensors, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Xilinx Incorporated | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew J. Cochran | Attorney | Counsel for Sentient Sensors, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian E. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Sentient Sensors, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gerald J. Flattmann , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Sentient Sensors, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John C. Stellabotte | Attorney | Counsel for Sentient Sensors, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael E. Shanahan | Attorney | Counsel for Sentient Sensors, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Sentient Sensors, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott H. Kaliko | Attorney | Counsel for Sentient Sensors, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Farnan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sentient Sensors, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron R. Fahrenkrog | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexandra M. Ewing | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel H. Wade | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily J. Tremblay | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frederick L. Cottrell , III | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey A. Shneidman | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mary Pheng | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Warren K. Mabey , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William R Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Richards, Layton & Finger, PA | Law Firm | Representing Xilinx IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the programmable SoC and FPGA IP space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from the Sentient Sensors v. Xilinx dispute and the broader programmable SoC landscape.
Sentient Sensors' programmable logic patent footprint
Sentient Sensors asserted US6938177B1 across virtually all of Xilinx's Zynq and Versal SoC generations. Monitoring Sentient Sensors' full portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or related applications — can reveal whether additional claims cover next-generation SoC and adaptive compute architectures beyond those named in this action.
Portfolio watch: Sentient SensorsFiling trends in SoC control and programmable logic patents
The assertion of a B1-grant patent filed in the early 2000s against current-generation Zynq UltraScale+ and Versal products suggests that foundational SoC control claims can age well technically. Tracking recent filing activity in programmable logic, SoC control fabric, and FPGA interconnect domains can surface emerging blocking IP before it reaches assertion.
Emerging SoC control IPXilinx (AMD) defensive IP in adaptive compute and Zynq architecture
Xilinx's engagement of Fish & Richardson for this four-year dispute reflects a substantive defensive strategy for its Zynq and Versal families. Examining Xilinx and AMD's own patent portfolio in adaptive SoC, programmable logic, and heterogeneous compute provides intelligence on where they have built defensive depth — and where competitor products may face cross-assertion risk.
AMD/Xilinx defensive portfolioAdjacent innovation opportunities near US6938177B1 claim scope
The gap between a 2000s-era SoC control patent and today's AI-optimised adaptive compute platforms (Versal AI Core, Kria AI Module) may contain filing white space. R&D teams exploring novel SoC control fabric architectures, heterogeneous processor integration, or AI-acceleration overlays on programmable logic may find opportunity to stake claims beyond the '177 patent's original scope.
SoC AI acceleration white spaceSimilar FPGA and SoC patent infringement cases in D. Del.
Cases asserting programmable logic and SoC patents against FPGA vendors in the District of Delaware, where Xilinx and AMD-related litigation frequently concentrates.
What this case signals for the programmable SoC and FPGA IP landscape
A four-year dispute targeting Xilinx's flagship SoC families underscores the assertion risk surrounding legacy semiconductor patents in adaptive compute.
Zynq and Versal product families attracted concentrated infringement risk
The complaint named virtually the entire Zynq portfolio — ZC702, ZC704, ZC706, ZCU102, ZCU104, ZCU106, Kria, and Versal — alongside associated development kits. Vendors building products on or competing with Xilinx SoC architecture should audit US6938177B1 claim scope against their own implementations before go-to-market.
Own-costs provision limits inference about the resolution's terms
Mutual cost-bearing is a common feature of negotiated dispositions and signals neither a clear plaintiff win nor a clear defendant win. IP teams tracking this case as a valuation or licensing benchmark should note that no public financial terms, royalty rates, or licensing commitments are disclosed in the available record.
Sentient v Xilinx — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. On 16 April 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) agreeing to dismiss all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees. The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed with Prejudice.
The accused products included the Zynq 7000 SoC series (ZC702, ZC704, ZC706), the Zynq UltraScale+ series (ZCU102, ZCU104, ZCU106), Zynq-based Kria products, Versal products, and development kits associated with those product families.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Sentient Sensors cannot re-file infringement claims based on US6938177B1 against Xilinx in any future proceeding. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties not party to this action.
US6938177B1 (application no. US10/028556) is a utility patent in the programmable logic and system-on-chip domain. It was asserted against multiple generations of Xilinx's SoC platforms. The B1 designation indicates it issued without a prior published application. Specific claim language and technical scope are available in the patent record itself.
The case was filed on 8 February 2022 and closed on 16 April 2026, lasting 1,528 days — over four years. It was litigated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The case ended by stipulated dismissal with prejudice and did not proceed to trial or a merits judgment.
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.