Litigation

3D Surfaces LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al.

judgment (on appeal)

1:22-cv-00854

Patents at issue (2)

7245299PTAB: final decision
RE42543

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

3D Surfaces LLC sued Dell Technologies, Inc. and Intel Corporation in the Western District of Texas for patent infringement. The District Court entered final judgment for Dell after a Federal Circuit mandate invalidated claims of US 7,245,299 and US RE42,543. Appeals are ongoing following subsequent filings in 2024.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

The case of 3D Surfaces LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. involves patent infringement litigation where the plaintiff, 3D Surfaces LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE), sued Dell Technologies, Inc. and Intel Corporation. Dell Technologies is a multinational technology company primarily known for its computer hardware, including personal computers, servers, and storage solutions. Intel Corporation is a leading American manufacturer of semiconductor computer circuits, primarily known for its microprocessors and graphics processing units (GPUs). The accused products in this case were Dell's DirectX 11-capable computing products, such as Alienware, XPS, and OptiPlex, and Intel's bicubic surface real-time tessellation units embedded within its GPU architectures.

The patents asserted by 3D Surfaces LLC are U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299 and U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE42,543. U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299 is directed to a method and apparatus for real-time tessellation of graphics objects for 3D rendering. U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE42,543 also relates to graphics surface rendering technology, specifically involving bicubic surface real-time tessellation. The litigation originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.), case number 1:22-cv-00854, and was initially assigned to District Judge Robert Lee Pitman before being reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. The Western District of Texas, particularly the Waco Division under Judge Albright, has been a notable venue for patent cases due to its fast-track scheduling and the judge's stated interest in patent litigation, although a 2022 change in case assignment practices has introduced more randomness for cases filed in the Waco Division. The case has since seen appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This case is notable for several reasons. As 3D Surfaces LLC is a patent assertion entity, it highlights the ongoing landscape of NPE litigation against major technology companies. The patents at issue concern graphics processing technology, specifically tessellation, which is fundamental to modern GPU pipelines and DirectX 11 capabilities, making the commercial stakes substantial for the semiconductor and computing industries. Furthermore, the case involved inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where Intel Corporation, among others, challenged the validity of the '299 patent. The Federal Circuit's subsequent rulings, affirming the invalidation of claims from both patents as obvious, have significant implications for the patentability of graphics processing innovations and underscore the vulnerability of such patents to obviousness challenges, especially when asserted against hardware implementing industry-standard APIs. This outcome reinforces a trend of rigorous patentability scrutiny at the Federal Circuit for hardware-level graphics IP.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research the docket and related proceedings systematically.

Key district-court facts are emerging. Let me dig into the docket milestones, the stay, Markman, and final judgment.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for press coverage from multiple angles.

Significant new information surfaced (different IPR numbers, and an appeal outcome). Let me dig deeper on press coverage specifically.

News and analysis coverage

Press coverage of this case is thin and almost entirely specialist/aggregator-level. I found no reporting in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, or Patently-O (I could not confirm a Law360 article on the case, only undated Law360 appellate/technology index pages carrying a "January 08, 2026" date stamp). The substantive items I located are: (1) IIPLA News, "Federal Circuit Upholds Intel and Dell's Victory in Graphics Patents Dispute," dated Thursday, January 8, 2026; (2) Verdict.news, "Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Board Ruling Against 3D Surfaces in Intel Case" (surfaced on a page dated April 3, 2026); (3) a PatSnap Eureka litigation analysis, "3D Surfaces LLC v. Dell Technologies: Graphics Patent Claims Invalidated as Obvious"; plus (4) the CourtListener oral-argument recording of 3D Surfaces, LLC v. Intel Corporation (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1909), which quotes counsel's argument rather than reporting on it.

All three written pieces describe the same core outcome: a Federal Circuit Rule 36 summary affirmance (no written opinion) entered January 8, 2026, by a panel of Judges Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes, upholding PTAB decisions that the asserted graphics-tessellation claims were unpatentable as obvious. Verdict.news reported that the appeal consolidated Nos. 2024-1909 and 2024-1910, arising from four IPRs — IPR2022-01589, IPR2022-01591, IPR2023-00004, and IPR2023-00006 — and named the appellate teams: Marc Belloli, Elizabeth Day, and Jerry Tice of Bunsow De Mory (with Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox) for 3D Surfaces, and Louis W. Tompros and colleagues of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr for Intel/Dell. IIPLA framed the result as "a significant win for the tech giants," and CourtListener's transcript of the argument captures 3D Surfaces' contrary theory — that Foley teaches tessellation outside the GPU and that the Board improperly found a motivation to modify that the petitions never advanced. No outlet reported any damages figure, settlement amount, or licensing terms; this case appears to have ended through IPR invalidation rather than a money judgment, and none of the coverage identified market or stock impact.

Where the accounts diverge most is on the identity of the reissue patent and the procedural timeline. IIPLA lists US 7,245,299 and "RE42,534," and every underlying PTAB/Federal Circuit document I reviewed (e.g., the IPR2022-01591 final written decision on "Patent RE42,534 E"; the CAFC Rule 36 judgment) uses RE42,534. PatSnap Eureka instead uses "RE42,543" — the number in this case's metadata — and adds a specific claim not visible in the appellate record: that the W.D. Tex. district court entered final judgment implementing the mandate on February 27, 2026, and that the overall dispute ran "Oct 2021 – Feb 2026." PatSnap goes further than the court record with analytical commentary — a freedom-to-operate "takeaway," a claim that the rulings "signal continued Federal Circuit skepticism" toward obviousness-vulnerable GPU claims, and advice that reissue patents are "vulnerable" — none of which is a holding. Verdict.news likewise editorializes, describing IPRs generally as "a cost-effective alternative to defending patent infringement lawsuits in district court, where damages awards can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars" (generic background, not a figure from this case).

⚠️ Flags against the prior sections. The earlier "Key legal developments" and overview sections in this file contain material errors that the coverage and primary documents contradict: they assert IPRs IPR2021-00720 through IPR2021-00724 with final written decisions on September 22, 2022 and a February 9, 2024 Federal Circuit affirmance. The record shows instead that the IPRs were filed October 1–3, 2022 (IPR2022-01588/01589/01590/01591 and IPR2023-00003/00004/00005/00006), the final written decisions issued April 16, 2024, and the Federal Circuit affirmance came January 8, 2026 — after the file's stated "2024" appeal timeline. The prior sections also never identify the appeal numbers (2024-1909/1910) now confirmed by three independent sources. Also note the case has a second docket number: it began as 6:21-cv-01107-ADA (Waco) and was renumbered 1:22-cv-00854 in the Austin Division — a docket fact relevant to the venue dispute reflected in this CourtListener order (3D Surfaces, LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc.), which weighs transfer between Waco and Austin and is a court document, not press reporting.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The counsel of record representing 3D Surfaces LLC in 3D Surfaces LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. (Case 1:22-cv-00854) could not be definitively identified through the conducted web searches. The available search results confirmed the case details, including its status, the patents at issue (US 7,245,299 and US RE42,543), and the outcome of claims invalidation by the Federal Circuit, but did not explicitly name the plaintiff's attorneys or their firms.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s), Dell Technologies, Inc. and Intel Corporation, in 3D Surfaces LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al.:

For Dell Technologies, Inc.:

  • Lauren Hoffer
    • Role: Sr. Litigation Counsel (in-house)
    • Firm: Dell Technologies, Inc., Round Rock, Texas
    • Note: Handles day-to-day strategy and logistics with outside counsel on Dell's patent litigation in federal district court and the International Trade Commission.
  • Peter Jovanovic
    • Role: Legal Director, IP (in-house)
    • Firm: Dell Technologies, Inc., Round Rock, Texas
    • Note: Responsible for patent portfolio development, patent litigation, open source management, and license drafting and negotiation. Prior to Dell, he was a software engineer.
  • F. Daniel Balena
    • Role: Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Dallas, Texas
    • Note: Paul Hastings' IP litigation practice is recognized for high-stakes patent litigation across various technologies, including semiconductors and telecommunications, and has experience in PTAB proceedings.
  • Nathan M. Taylor
    • Role: Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Dallas, Texas
    • Note: Paul Hastings maintains a global litigation practice with experience in intellectual property disputes.
  • Austin Lorch
    • Role: Associate Counsel
    • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Austin, Texas
    • Note: Advises clients on patent strategies, prosecution, post-grant proceedings, and infringement/invalidity opinions across various technologies, including data center infrastructure. Haynes and Boone has a large IP litigation practice and is active in PTAB trials.
  • David O'Brien
    • Role: Partner
    • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Austin, Texas
    • Note: Leads the firm's Patent Office Trials Practice Group, focusing on IPR and other post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, with over 25 years of experience in software, semiconductor, and microprocessor technologies.
  • Michael L. Roberts
    • Role: Partner
    • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, Texas
    • Note: Focuses on complex patent litigation, representing clients in various district courts and before the Federal Circuit, involving technologies such as wireless communications and consumer electronics. Sidley Austin's IP litigation practice is noted for high-value patent disputes in hi-tech sectors and is active in PTAB proceedings.
  • Tung T. Nguyen
    • Role: Partner
    • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, Texas
    • Note: Represents clients in patent and trade secret litigation, as well as licensing and counseling, with extensive experience in telecommunications and encryption technologies.

For Intel Corporation:

  • Tina Chappell
    • Role: Senior Litigation Counsel (in-house)
    • Firm: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, California
    • Note: Focuses on patent appeals and works with in-house and outside counsel on federal appeals court and U.S. Supreme Court cases.
  • Steven R. Rodgers
    • Role: Senior Vice President and General Counsel (in-house)
    • Firm: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, California
    • Note: Leads Intel's Law and Policy Group and has prior experience as a senior litigation attorney and head of Intel's patent generation and IP licensing groups.
  • Gemma Suh
    • Role: Associate General Counsel, Managing Counsel for Patent Litigation (in-house)
    • Firm: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, California
    • Note: Specializes in patent litigation and intellectual property.
  • Charles Everingham IV
    • Role: Partner (local counsel)
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, Longview, Texas (formerly Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld)
    • Note: Former U.S. Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, with a focus on patent litigation and experience handling Markman proceedings and trials in complex patent cases involving semiconductors, computer hardware and software.
  • Joseph E. Palys
    • Role: Partner
    • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, D.C.
    • Note: Focuses on IP litigation and post-grant proceedings, with extensive experience coordinating federal court and post-grant proceedings, and a former USPTO supervisory patent examiner. Paul Hastings has represented numerous large corporations in patent litigation, including in the semiconductor industry.
  • Gabriel Steinberg
    • Role: Associate Counsel
    • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Houston, Texas
    • Note: Focuses on patent litigation, Section 337 investigations, and trade secrets disputes across various industries.
  • Felix A. Eyzaguirre
    • Role: Associate Counsel
    • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Houston, Texas
    • Note: Focuses on complex patent and IP-related litigation, particularly in the technology sector.

It is noted that Intel Corporation, along with Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc., were identified as real parties-in-interest for the Petitioner in an inter partes review of one of the patents at issue in the district court litigation (U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299).