Technoprobe v. FormFactor: Probe Card Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Italian semiconductor test equipment maker Technoprobe S.p.A. filed suit against U.S.-based FormFactor, Inc. in Delaware over probe card patent US11035885B2. After 671 days of litigation, both parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — a resolution that permanently bars re-filing of the same claims.
A Competitive Probe Card Dispute That Settled on Mutual Terms
On August 4, 2023, Technoprobe S.p.A., an Italian manufacturer of semiconductor test interface products, filed a patent infringement action against FormFactor, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case, assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, centred on US11035885B2 — a patent covering probe card technology used in wafer-level semiconductor testing — and specifically targeted FormFactor’s competing probe card products.
The case concluded on June 5, 2025, when Judge Choe-Groves entered a Stipulated Order of Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice means Technoprobe’s infringement claims are permanently extinguished and cannot be re-filed. Each party was ordered to bear its own fees and costs, a cost-neutral outcome consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested adjudication.
The 671-day duration — spanning from filing through to the stipulated dismissal — suggests the parties engaged in meaningful discovery and claim development before reaching terms. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and voluntary stipulation are hallmarks of a confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm or disclose any licensing terms, cross-licensing arrangements, or monetary consideration exchanged between Technoprobe and FormFactor.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 671 days
671 days — above the median for patent cases dismissed by stipulation in D. Del.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): dismissal by joint stipulation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits parties to dismiss an action at any stage by filing a signed stipulation. When filed as ‘with prejudice,’ the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits — the plaintiff permanently loses the right to re-sue on the same patent claims against the same defendant. The court retains jurisdiction solely to enforce the order’s terms.
Permanent bar on re-filingTechnoprobe’s claims are permanently closed
Dismissal with prejudice means Technoprobe cannot re-assert US11035885B2 against FormFactor in a new action on the same accused products. However, the stipulated nature of the dismissal — and the absence of any adverse judgment — leaves open the possibility that Technoprobe secured non-litigation value, such as a licensing agreement or design-around commitment. The public record is silent on any such terms.
No adverse judgment on recordFormFactor gains permanent immunity from this patent on these claims
FormFactor exits the litigation without a court finding of infringement or validity. The with-prejudice dismissal provides strong protection against re-assertion of US11035885B2 by Technoprobe on the same accused probe card products. Each party bearing its own costs reflects a balanced negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side.
No infringement findingPatent remains enforceable against other probe card manufacturers
The dismissal does not affect US11035885B2’s validity or enforceability against third parties. Other probe card manufacturers — particularly those competing in wafer-level test interface markets — remain exposed to potential infringement claims. The resolution between Technoprobe and FormFactor signals that the patent has sufficient perceived strength to drive settlement but provides no judicial guidance on claim scope.
Patent still live against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Technoprobe, SPA | Individual | Semiconductor test interface manufacturer — holder of US11035885B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Formfactor, Inc. | Company | FormFactor, Inc. — U.S. designer and manufacturer of semiconductor probe cards and wafer test solutions.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Abhay A. Watwe | Attorney | Counsel for Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Russell | Attorney | Counsel for Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Emily DiBenedetto | Attorney | Counsel for Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Houtan K. Esfahani | Attorney | Counsel for Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kelly S. Horn | Attorney | Counsel for Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Sommers | Attorney | Counsel for Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Milan F. Feliciello | Attorney | Counsel for Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shaw Keller LLP | Law Firm | Representing Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Colin Mayo | Attorney | Counsel for Formfactor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anri Nakamoto | Attorney | Counsel for Formfactor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Caroline Simons | Attorney | Counsel for Formfactor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jasmine W. Zhu | Attorney | Counsel for Formfactor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John G. Day | Attorney | Counsel for Formfactor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Lind | Attorney | Counsel for Formfactor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | T. Vann Pearce | Attorney | Counsel for Formfactor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ashby & Geddes PC | Law Firm | Representing Formfactor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order’s reference to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) confirms this was a consensual, bilateral termination rather than a court-imposed resolution. The phrase ‘each Party shall bear its own fees and costs’ is significant: it suggests neither party achieved a position strong enough — or weak enough — to justify fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce the order is standard but preserves a mechanism for either party to return should any confidential settlement terms be breached.
US11035885B2 — Semiconductor probe card technology for wafer-level testing
US11035885B2, filed under application number 16/442385, protects probe card technology used in semiconductor wafer-level testing — the process by which integrated circuits are electrically tested before dicing. Probe cards serve as the critical interface between automated test equipment (ATE) and individual die on a wafer, and their performance characteristics — contact force, pitch, planarity — directly affect test yield and throughput. The patent’s grant reflects Technoprobe’s R&D investment in advancing probe card architecture.
Probe card technology sits at the intersection of semiconductor manufacturing yield management and ATE ecosystem competitiveness. As device geometries shrink and wafer diameters increase, probe card precision becomes a significant differentiator. Technoprobe and FormFactor are among the world’s leading probe card suppliers, meaning any patent assertion between them carries broad commercial significance for chipmakers reliant on both companies’ products — including major logic and memory fabs.
Should you run an FTO against US11035885B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or sourcing probe cards for wafer-level semiconductor testing should treat US11035885B2 as a live FTO risk. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the Technoprobe–FormFactor dispute; the patent remains fully enforceable against other parties. Companies developing advanced probe card architectures — especially those with similar contact array, cantilever, or vertical probe designs — should assess their exposure before commercialisation or expansion into markets where Technoprobe operates.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US11035885B2’s claim scope against your product architecture, identify related Technoprobe patent family members that may present parallel risk, and flag any continuation applications still pending. Eureka’s AI-assisted claim charting accelerates the analysis that typically takes weeks of manual prosecution history review — giving your R&D and IP teams a defensible clearance position faster.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11035885B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar probe card and semiconductor test equipment patent cases
Probe card and wafer-level test interface patent disputes litigated in Delaware District Court, including comparable infringement actions between semiconductor test equipment manufacturers.
What this case signals for the semiconductor test equipment IP landscape
Probe card patent disputes in Delaware are intensifying as wafer-level testing demand grows. This case offers practical lessons for IP teams in the semiconductor equipment sector.
With-prejudice dismissals signal patents with real leverage
When a plaintiff agrees to dismiss with prejudice — permanently surrendering the right to re-file — it typically reflects either a confidential settlement or a strategic business resolution. For competitors of FormFactor and Technoprobe, this outcome suggests US11035885B2 carried enough perceived strength to drive 671 days of litigation and a negotiated close.
Cost-neutral outcomes indicate balanced bargaining positions
Each party bearing its own costs is a strong indicator that neither side secured a decisive advantage in pre-trial proceedings. Patent teams monitoring probe card IP should note that cost neutrality often accompanies cross-licensing or covenant-not-to-sue arrangements — neither of which appear in the public record here.
SPA v Formfactor — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulated order on June 5, 2025, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party bore its own fees and costs. No court finding of infringement or invalidity was made. The dismissal permanently bars Technoprobe from re-asserting the same claims against FormFactor on the same accused products.
Technoprobe asserted US11035885B2, filed under application number 16/442385. The patent covers semiconductor probe card technology used in wafer-level electrical testing — a critical interface component between automated test equipment and integrated circuits on a wafer. The asserted product was described as the Technoprobe probe card.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final termination of the case on the merits. The plaintiff permanently loses the right to re-file the same patent claims against the same defendant in a new action. In the context of a stipulated order, it typically indicates the parties have reached a private resolution — such as a settlement or licensing arrangement — though no such terms appear in the public record for this case.
Mutual cost-bearing is a common feature of consensually negotiated patent dismissals and typically indicates that neither party achieved a clearly dominant litigation position. It also avoids the high threshold required for fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires a case to be deemed ‘exceptional.’ The cost-neutral arrangement is consistent with, but does not confirm, a confidential settlement.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only resolves Technoprobe’s claims against FormFactor on the accused probe card products. It has no effect on the patent’s validity or enforceability against other parties. Third-party probe card manufacturers and developers of wafer-level test interface technology remain potentially exposed to infringement claims under US11035885B2.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.