SynQor v. Vicor Corporation — Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
SynQor, Inc. brought an infringement appeal against Vicor Corporation at the Federal Circuit over six patents covering unregulated bus converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems. The parties agreed to dismiss the proceeding under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) after 130 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
A six-patent Federal Circuit appeal ended by mutual agreement
SynQor, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 7 June 2024 (Case No. 24-1922), asserting infringement of six US patents — US7269034B2, US7564702B2, US7072190B2, US7558083B2, US8023290B2, and US7272021B2 — all directed to unregulated bus converters deployed in intermediate bus architecture (IBA) power supply systems. The respondent, Vicor Corporation, is a competing power electronics manufacturer whose product lineup overlaps with the IBA technology domain covered by SynQor’s portfolio.
On 15 October 2024 — just 130 days after filing — the Federal Circuit entered an order dismissing the proceeding under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), reflecting a joint agreement between the parties. The order specifies that each side shall bear its own costs. Notably, the public record does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, which is a material distinction for assessing whether SynQor could re-litigate the same infringement claims in a future proceeding.
The brevity of the appeal — resolved in roughly four months — suggests the parties may have reached a negotiated resolution, though the order itself does not confirm any settlement or licensing arrangement. The absence of a merits ruling means no appellate precedent was established on the scope or validity of SynQor’s IBA patents. What drove the mutual agreement, and whether any commercial terms accompany the dismissal, remains unknown from the publicly available record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 130 days
130 days — appeal resolved in under 5 months at the Federal Circuit
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by agreement, no merits ruling
Rule 42(b) permits parties to jointly dismiss an appeal at any time. The Federal Circuit’s order reflects mutual consent — the court made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. This is a procedural exit, not a judicial determination. No appellate precedent was created, and neither party’s legal position was formally vindicated or rejected on the merits.
Procedural exit — no merits adjudicatedWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same claims; one without prejudice preserves that option. The Federal Circuit’s order in Case No. 24-1922 does not specify either. This distinction is commercially significant: if dismissed without prejudice, SynQor may retain the ability to assert these six patents against Vicor again in a new proceeding, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreement between the parties.
Prejudice terms undisclosedSynQor exits without a ruling — enforcement options remain formally open
As the party that brought the appeal, SynQor agreed to the dismissal without obtaining a favorable appellate ruling on its six IBA converter patents. Whether this reflects a negotiated licensing outcome, a strategic withdrawal, or a commercial settlement is not determinable from the public record. SynQor’s patent portfolio in the IBA space remains intact; no claim was invalidated or narrowed by this proceeding.
Portfolio intact, no ruling obtainedVicor avoids an adverse ruling but gains no formal invalidity shield
Vicor exits the appeal without a formal finding that its unregulated bus converter products do not infringe, and without a validity ruling that would offer sector-wide protection. A Rule 42(b) dismissal provides no estoppel benefit equivalent to a merits win. Vicor’s exposure to future assertions on these six patents — by SynQor or any successor in interest — is not definitively resolved by this order.
No invalidity shield createdFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SynQor, Inc. | Company | Power electronics IP licensor — holder of US7269034B2 and five IBA converter patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Vicor Corporation | Company | Vicor Corporation — power component manufacturer, IBA and bus converter product linesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael D. Hatcher. | Attorney | Counsel for SynQor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sidley Austin LLP | Law Firm | Representing SynQor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Vicor CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft, PC | Law Firm | Representing Vicor CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order adopts the parties’ agreed language verbatim, entering dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with a mutual cost-bearing provision. The absence of any merits language — no affirmance, reversal, or remand instruction — confirms this is a purely procedural termination. The own-costs order is the default under Rule 39 absent a contrary agreement, and its inclusion here does not imply fault or concession by either party. No appellate standard of review was applied to the underlying infringement or validity questions.
US7269034B2 and five further patents — IBA unregulated bus converter portfolio
The six asserted patents — US7269034B2, US7564702B2, US7072190B2, US7558083B2, US8023290B2, and US7272021B2 — collectively form SynQor’s core portfolio covering unregulated bus converters deployed in intermediate bus architecture (IBA) power supply systems. IBA designs use a first-stage bus converter to step down input voltage to an intermediate rail, from which distributed point-of-load regulators draw power. The patents address converter topology, regulation architecture, and efficiency optimisation across this two-stage distribution model.
SynQor has historically positioned this portfolio as foundational to the IBA power supply market, asserting it against multiple competitors over more than a decade. For power electronics manufacturers, contract designers, and system integrators building server, telecom, or industrial power architectures relying on IBA topology, these patents represent a significant freedom-to-operate consideration. The portfolio’s survival through multiple litigation rounds — without a definitive invalidity ruling in this proceeding — strengthens its commercial leverage in licensing negotiations.
Should you run an FTO analysis against SynQor’s IBA bus converter patents?
Any engineering or product team designing unregulated bus converters or intermediate bus architecture power supplies should assess exposure to this six-patent portfolio. The claims span converter topology, regulation staging, and IBA system architecture — meaning both component-level and system-level designs may fall within scope. This is particularly urgent for teams targeting server power, telecom infrastructure, or industrial distributed power markets where IBA is the dominant architecture.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your specific circuit topology and system architecture against the active claim sets across all six SynQor patents, identify prior art landscapes that may support design-around or challenge strategies, and flag continuation applications that could extend portfolio reach. Run an automated FTO report to identify your exposure before committing to a product architecture that intersects with IBA converter technology.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7269034B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar IBA power electronics patent appeals at the Federal Circuit
Cases involving intermediate bus architecture and bus converter patents at the Federal Circuit, including prior SynQor enforcement actions and related power electronics disputes.
What this case signals for the power electronics IP landscape
Six IBA converter patents, a Federal Circuit docket, and a quiet exit — the strategic signals for power supply IP stakeholders.
IBA converter patents remain a live enforcement risk across the sector
SynQor’s six asserted patents were never invalidated or narrowed in this proceeding. Companies designing intermediate bus architecture power supplies — including contract manufacturers and ODMs integrating unregulated bus converters — should treat this portfolio as a continuing enforcement risk. The absence of a merits ruling leaves SynQor’s claims legally intact.
Rule 42(b) dismissals with own-costs orders often signal undisclosed settlement
A mutual consent dismissal at the Federal Circuit level, reached within 130 days of filing, is consistent with parties having reached a private commercial arrangement. While unconfirmed, this pattern typically signals a licensing deal or cross-licensing resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal. Competitors and potential licensees should monitor both parties’ product roadmaps for signals of a broader commercial agreement.
SynQor v Vicor — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) is a procedural termination with no merits ruling. None of SynQor’s six IBA converter patents were invalidated, narrowed, or adjudicated for infringement. The patents remain enforceable, and SynQor retains the right to assert them in future proceedings, subject to any private agreement between the parties that is not reflected in the public record.
The Federal Circuit’s order in Case No. 24-1922 does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. This is a material distinction: dismissal with prejudice would bar SynQor from re-asserting the same claims against Vicor, while dismissal without prejudice would preserve that option. The public record is silent on this point, and any clarifying terms would need to come from a private agreement between the parties.
SynQor asserted six patents: US7269034B2, US7564702B2, US7072190B2, US7558083B2, US8023290B2, and US7272021B2. All cover technology related to unregulated bus converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems — a two-stage power distribution topology widely used in server, telecom, and industrial applications.
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) allows parties to an appeal to jointly dismiss the proceeding at any stage, typically by filing a signed agreement or stipulation. The Federal Circuit enters the dismissal as a ministerial order reflecting the parties’ consent. No merits analysis is conducted and no judicial finding is made. In Case No. 24-1922, the court adopted the parties’ agreed terms, dismissing the case and directing each side to bear its own costs.
Unregulated bus converters are DC-DC conversion devices used in the first stage of an intermediate bus architecture power supply, stepping down a high input voltage to an intermediate bus rail without tightly regulating the output. They prioritise high efficiency over tight output regulation, with downstream point-of-load regulators handling voltage precision. SynQor’s patents cover specific topologies and architectures for these converters, making them relevant to any manufacturer or designer working with IBA-based power supply systems.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.