Vampire Labs v. AMD: CPU Patent Suit Transferred to Midland Division
Vampire Labs, LLC asserted three US patents against Advanced Micro Devices’ Zen 3+ and later CPU architectures in the Western District of Texas. Filed and transferred on the same day — November 14, 2025 — after counsel opened the case in the wrong division. The matter now proceeds in the Midland Division as case 7:25-cv-00533.
Three CPU Patents, One Division Misstep: AMD Case Rerouted to Midland
On November 14, 2025, Vampire Labs, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents — US9104476B2, US9098271B2, and US9218048B2 — against AMD’s Zen 3+ and later CPU architecture product lines. The case was brought by plaintiff’s counsel Andrew G. DiNovo of DiNovo Price LLP, a firm with a notable history of patent enforcement in Texas courts.
The case was closed on the same day it was filed. Court records indicate that plaintiff’s attorney, Andrew G. DiNovo, opened the case in the wrong division. The matter was copied over to the Midland Division and will proceed under case number 7:25-cv-00533. The Midland Division was notified via email. No substantive rulings, claim construction proceedings, or merits determinations were made in the Austin filing.
The zero-day duration is entirely attributable to the administrative division error rather than any resolution on the merits. The underlying infringement dispute — covering AMD’s Zen 3+ and later architectures — remains live and active in the Midland Division. Public records do not indicate why Midland was the correct division; this is consistent with venue rules tied to AMD’s registered agents or places of business in that division.
Filing to Case Transferred in 0 days
Case filed and transferred on the same day — zero days of substantive proceedings in Austin
Wrong division filed: what the transfer to Midland means for both parties
Administrative transfer: no merits ruling, case continues in Midland
A case transfer due to incorrect division filing is a purely administrative event. No claim has been adjudicated, no ruling issued, and no prejudice applied to either party. The Western District of Texas is divided into several divisions — including Austin and Midland — and cases must be filed in the division consistent with local rules and venue requirements. The transfer preserves all claims intact under a new docket number: 7:25-cv-00533.
Procedural — no merits impactVampire Labs retains all claims; Midland venue now governs
The transfer does not prejudice Vampire Labs’ infringement claims. All three asserted patents and the product allegations against AMD’s Zen 3+ and later CPUs carry forward unchanged. The Midland Division of the Western District of Texas has historically been an active patent venue. Plaintiff’s counsel will need to comply with Midland-specific local rules and any standing orders from the assigned judge in the new docket.
Claims preserved — litigation continuesAMD faces unchanged infringement allegations in Midland
For AMD, the division transfer changes the administrative forum but not the substantive exposure. The infringement allegations covering Zen 3+ and later CPU architectures under three patents remain in force. AMD will now respond to the complaint, and any responsive motions or invalidity arguments will be filed in the Midland Division. The transfer offers no procedural advantage or disadvantage to AMD on the merits.
Substantive risk unchangedMidland Division: a notable patent litigation forum in West Texas
The Midland Division of the Western District of Texas has emerged as a significant patent litigation venue, particularly following Waco’s rise under Judge Albright. Midland cases can carry different judge assignments and local procedural norms. Practitioners and defendants in semiconductor cases should monitor judge assignment and standing orders in 7:25-cv-00533, as these will shape discovery timelines, claim construction schedules, and trial dates.
Monitor judge assignment in MidlandFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Vampire Labs, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9104476B2, US9098271B2, and US9218048B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Company | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. — global semiconductor company, designer of Zen-series CPUsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew G. DiNovo | Attorney | Counsel for Vampire Labs, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DiNovo Price LLP | Law Firm | Representing Vampire Labs, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer notation confirms this is a purely administrative disposition — no liability finding, no claim construction, and no merits ruling of any kind was issued. The case was opened in the wrong division and immediately rerouted. The substantive infringement allegations against AMD’s Zen 3+ CPU architectures under all three asserted patents remain entirely unresolved and are now active in the Midland Division under docket 7:25-cv-00533.
US9104476B2, US9098271B2, US9218048B2 — CPU Architecture & Power Management
The three asserted patents — US9104476B2 (App. No. 12/869,566), US9098271B2 (App. No. 13/759,587), and US9218048B2 (App. No. 13/756,545) — relate to CPU architecture, covering areas consistent with processor performance scaling, power management, and multi-core resource management. The application numbers suggest filings in the 2010–2013 timeframe, placing their priority dates during a formative period for modern x86 microarchitecture design. All three are granted B2 utility patents, indicating they survived examination with issued claims.
For the semiconductor sector, patents covering CPU core management and power state control carry significant strategic weight. AMD’s Zen 3+ architecture — and by extension Zen 4 and Zen 5 — underpins Ryzen consumer CPUs, EPYC server processors, and a wide range of embedded and semi-custom products. If Vampire Labs’ claims are upheld, the exposure could extend beyond AMD to OEMs, system integrators, and cloud providers shipping AMD-based infrastructure. The breadth of the ‘Zen 3+ and later’ product scope suggests these patents are being read broadly against modern AMD microarchitecture.
Should your team run an FTO against US9104476, US9098271, and US9218048?
Any R&D team designing multi-core processors, power management IP, or CPU scheduling logic — or any product team shipping AMD Zen 3+-based systems — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against these three patent families. The ‘Zen 3+ and later’ claim scope in this complaint suggests the patents are being interpreted broadly, and downstream exposure for AMD licensees, OEM partners, or competitive CPU designers cannot be ruled out without a proper claim mapping.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim scope of US9104476B2, US9098271B2, and US9218048B2 against your product specifications, flag related continuations or family members, and surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments. For teams monitoring AMD architecture litigation, Eureka’s case tracking and patent citation analysis can provide early warning of enforcement expansion across the Zen CPU product line.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9104476B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CPU Architecture Patent Cases in the Western District of Texas
Cases asserting processor architecture and power management patents against semiconductor companies in the Western District of Texas, including Midland and Waco divisions.
What this case signals for the semiconductor CPU IP landscape
A three-patent assertion against AMD’s flagship Zen architecture suggests deliberate enforcement strategy — the Midland transfer is a speed bump, not an exit.
Three architecture-level patents against Zen 3+ signals broad claim scope
Asserting three patents simultaneously against AMD’s Zen 3+ and later CPUs — rather than a single narrowly targeted patent — suggests Vampire Labs is pursuing broad coverage across AMD’s current and next-generation product lines. IP teams at companies building on or competing with AMD architectures should audit their own exposure to these patent families.
DiNovo Price LLP’s W.D. Tex. track record warrants close monitoring
DiNovo Price LLP has an established practice in Western District of Texas patent enforcement. Their involvement suggests experienced plaintiff-side litigation infrastructure. Defendants and potential future targets in the CPU and SoC space should treat this filing as an active enforcement campaign, not a one-off action.
Vampire v Advanced — key questions answered
The case was filed and transferred on the same day — November 14, 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel Andrew G. DiNovo filed the case in the wrong division of the Western District of Texas. It was administratively transferred to the Midland Division and will proceed as case 7:25-cv-00533. No merits rulings were issued.
Vampire Labs asserted three patents: US9104476B2 (App. 12/869,566), US9098271B2 (App. 13/759,587), and US9218048B2 (App. 13/756,545). All three relate to CPU architecture, covering areas consistent with processor power management and multi-core performance control, asserted against AMD’s Zen 3+ and later CPU architectures.
The complaint targets AMD’s product lines ‘at least within its Zen 3+ and later CPU architectures.’ This language is broad and could encompass Zen 4 and Zen 5 products, including Ryzen 7000/9000 series consumer CPUs and EPYC server processors, though the specific accused products will be defined through discovery in the Midland proceedings.
The transfer to the Midland Division (case 7:25-cv-00533) is purely administrative. All claims are preserved. No prejudice was applied to either party. The case will now proceed under Midland Division local rules, with a newly assigned judge. Monitoring the Midland docket for judge assignment and early scheduling orders is important for both parties.
No. The Austin docket (1:25-cv-01838) is closed, but only because the case was transferred — not decided. The substantive infringement dispute over AMD’s Zen 3+ CPU architectures under three patents continues in the Western District of Texas, Midland Division, as case 7:25-cv-00533. No merits ruling has been issued.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.