Technoprobe v. FormFactor: Probe Card Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Italian probe card specialist Technoprobe S.p.A. brought an infringement action against U.S. rival FormFactor, Inc. in Delaware over US11921133B2, a patent covering probe card technology. After 370 days of litigation, both parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — each bearing its own legal costs.
A Direct Competitor Dispute Over Probe Card IP That Ended Quietly
Technoprobe S.p.A., an Italian semiconductor testing equipment manufacturer, filed suit against FormFactor, Inc. on 31 May 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting infringement of US11921133B2. The patent relates to probe card technology used in semiconductor wafer testing — a market where both companies compete directly at a global scale. The product accused of infringement was FormFactor’s imported probe cards.
The case was terminated on 5 June 2025 via a Stipulated Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice means Technoprobe permanently relinquished its right to re-file these specific infringement claims against FormFactor on the asserted patent. Notably, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting a negotiated resolution without a clear financial winner declared in the public record.
The 370-day duration is consistent with a case resolved before significant discovery expenditure or claim construction proceedings, suggesting the parties likely reached a private commercial arrangement — such as a licensing agreement or cross-licensing deal — though the public record is silent on any such terms. The mutual cost-bearing provision, combined with the with-prejudice dismissal, may indicate a balanced outcome rather than a capitulation by either side.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 370 days
370 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial settlement before major discovery costs peak
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties jointly filed a stipulated order of dismissal. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: it extinguishes the plaintiff’s infringement claims permanently — Technoprobe cannot re-assert these same claims under US11921133B2 against FormFactor in a future action. This is a final disposition on the merits as a matter of law, even without a trial.
Permanent bar on re-filingTechnoprobe permanently surrenders these infringement claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Technoprobe accepted that it cannot re-litigate these specific infringement allegations under US11921133B2 against FormFactor. This is a significant concession. However, the absence of a court-imposed fee award against Technoprobe suggests the decision was strategic — likely reflecting a private agreement — rather than a forced withdrawal following adverse rulings.
Claims permanently extinguishedFormFactor secures permanent protection from these claims
FormFactor obtained a with-prejudice dismissal, shielding it from any future re-filing of the same infringement claims under US11921133B2. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means FormFactor received no fee award, which may indicate the settlement involved some form of commercial compromise. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable; only these specific claims against FormFactor are resolved.
Protected from re-filingProbe card IP disputes signal intensifying competition in semiconductor test
This action — filed by a European entrant against the dominant U.S. probe card supplier — reflects the competitive pressure building in semiconductor wafer testing as advanced packaging and AI chip demand accelerate. The fact that both parties walked away bearing their own costs is consistent with a licensing or commercial resolution. US11921133B2 remains an active enforcement asset for Technoprobe against other market participants.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Technoprobe, SPA | Individual | Semiconductor probe card manufacturer — holder of US11921133B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Formfactor, Inc. | Company | FormFactor, Inc. — U.S.-based semiconductor wafer probe card supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Abhay A. Watwe | Attorney | Counsel for Technoprobe, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander E. Harding | 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 | John G. Day | 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 court’s order adopts the parties’ stipulated language verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and directing each party to bear its own fees and costs. The retention of jurisdiction to enforce the order is a standard protective measure but may also be consistent with an underlying settlement agreement whose terms require monitoring. The absence of any damages award, injunction, or findings on validity or infringement means this order carries no precedential weight on the merits of US11921133B2.
US11921133B2 — Probe Card Technology for Semiconductor Wafer Testing
US11921133B2, filed under application number US18/329475, protects probe card technology used in the electrical testing of semiconductor wafers. Probe cards are precision instruments that make temporary electrical contact with chip die during wafer-level testing — a critical step in semiconductor manufacturing quality control. The patent’s designation suggests innovations in probe card architecture or contact element design, areas of intense R&D competition as chipmakers push to higher I/O densities and finer pitch geometries.
In the context of the global semiconductor test equipment market — where FormFactor holds a commanding position and Technoprobe has been aggressively expanding — this patent represents a potential point of differentiation in probe card design. As advanced packaging, HBM memory stacks, and AI-accelerator chip testing requirements intensify, probe card IP is increasingly strategic. Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing probe cards into the U.S. market should assess its exposure to this patent’s claims.
Should your probe card products be cleared against US11921133B2?
Any company designing or manufacturing probe cards for semiconductor wafer testing — particularly those importing into the U.S. market — faces potential exposure to US11921133B2. The claims of this patent have not been adjudicated on the merits, meaning no invalidity finding protects third parties. If your product touches probe card contact architecture or wafer-level test interface technology, an FTO analysis against this patent is commercially prudent before U.S. market entry or product launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim scope of US11921133B2, identify relevant prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface related Technoprobe prosecution activity that may indicate continuation patents with overlapping or broadened scope. This allows your IP team to make informed go/no-go decisions and brief product engineers on design-around opportunities before litigation risk materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11921133B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Probe Card & Semiconductor Test Equipment Patent Cases
Browse related infringement actions involving probe card and semiconductor wafer testing patents litigated in U.S. district courts, including Delaware.
What this case signals for the semiconductor probe card IP landscape
A with-prejudice dismissal between direct competitors in probe card technology rarely signals unconditional surrender — it typically signals a deal.
Mutual cost-bearing in with-prejudice dismissals suggests negotiated resolution
When both parties absorb their own costs after a with-prejudice dismissal, the public record rarely tells the full story. In competitor patent disputes of this kind, this structure is frequently consistent with an out-of-court licensing arrangement or broader commercial settlement. IP teams monitoring FormFactor and Technoprobe’s competitive relationship should treat this as a resolved — not necessarily won — dispute.
US11921133B2 remains a live enforcement weapon for Technoprobe
The dismissal resolves claims only as between these two parties. Technoprobe’s patent US11921133B2 is unaffected and can still be asserted against other probe card manufacturers or importers. Companies sourcing or manufacturing probe cards that compete in the semiconductor test market should assess their FTO exposure to this patent independently of this case’s outcome.
SPA v Formfactor — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in case 1:24-cv-00650 means Technoprobe permanently relinquished its infringement claims under US11921133B2 against FormFactor. It cannot re-file the same claims in any future action. This is a final legal disposition, even though no trial or merits ruling occurred. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
The public record does not declare a winner. The case was terminated by mutual stipulation — both parties jointly agreed to dismiss with prejudice, each bearing their own costs. This structure is frequently consistent with a private settlement or licensing agreement, though no such terms appear in the public record. Neither party obtained a judicial finding on infringement or patent validity.
US11921133B2 is a Technoprobe patent filed under application US18/329475 covering probe card technology used in semiconductor wafer testing. FormFactor is the leading U.S. probe card supplier and a direct competitor to Technoprobe in the semiconductor test equipment market. Technoprobe alleged FormFactor’s imported probe cards infringed this patent. The case resolved without any court determination on those allegations.
Technoprobe was represented by Shaw Keller LLP, with attorneys including Andrew Russell, Mark Sommers, Houtan K. Esfahani, and others. FormFactor was represented by Ashby & Geddes PC, with attorneys Andrew Colin Mayo and John G. Day. The case was assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves in the District of Delaware.
No. The dismissal with prejudice in case 1:24-cv-00650 resolves infringement claims only between Technoprobe and FormFactor. US11921133B2 remains a valid, issued U.S. patent. Technoprobe retains full rights to assert it against other probe card manufacturers, importers, or users. Third parties should conduct independent FTO analysis and not assume the dismissal provides any protection against their own potential exposure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.