Untitled case

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The lawsuit, case number 2:25-cv-00324, was initiated on April 1, 2025. AICP is likely a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), asserting its intellectual property against TSMC, a prominent operating company and a leading global semiconductor foundry. The asserted patents generally relate to methods of manufacturing semiconductors or the structures thereof. Specifically, the patents-in-suit include U.S. Patent No. 7,632,751, along with U.S. Patent No. 7,439,623, U.S. Patent No. 8,329,572, and U.S. Patent No. 8,884,373.

The '751 patent, titled "Semiconductor device and method of manufacturing the same," describes an integrated circuit structure that includes a semiconductor substrate, a gate electrode, and sidewall spacers, along with a method for forming this structure. This patent focuses on specific fabrication techniques to enhance semiconductor device performance. The case is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often chosen for its specialized local rules and historically rapid trial schedules. This court's active docket and Judge Gilstrap's extensive experience in patent cases contribute to its significance for patent holders and accused infringers alike.

Procedurally, the case has seen a motion to dismiss claims of willful and indirect infringement, which Judge Gilstrap partially granted and partially denied on March 10, 2026. A Claim Construction Hearing was scheduled for May 14, 2026, and a Case Management Conference is set for October 13, 2026. The litigation is notable not only due to the involvement of a major semiconductor manufacturer like TSMC, which places it within the critical and high-value semiconductor industry, but also because it involves an NPE asserting patents central to advanced manufacturing processes. The ruling on pre-suit knowledge for willful infringement claims, which considered knowledge of a patent application (not just an issued patent), offers important guidance on pleading standards in patent cases. There are no public records of inter partes reviews (IPRs) specifically targeting US Patent 7,632,751 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

This patent infringement lawsuit, Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, Case No. 2:25-cv-00324, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas and involves U.S. Patent No. 7,632,751, among others. The case is currently in its early stages, with significant developments related to a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2025-04-01: Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC ("AICP") filed the complaint against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited ("TSMC") in the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges infringement of four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,632,751, 7,439,623, 8,329,572, and 8,884,373.
  • As of July 28, 2025, TSMC had not yet filed an answer to AICP's complaint, as indicated in TSMC's motion to stay.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2025-07-28: TSMC filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This motion specifically mentioned IPR2025-01210 (TSMC v. AICP) and noted that a Markman hearing was scheduled for May 14, 2026, and a trial for November 16, 2026.
  • Undated (Prior to March 10, 2026): TSMC filed a motion to dismiss AICP's claims of willful and indirect infringement.
  • 2026-03-10: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order that partially granted and partially denied TSMC's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed AICP's pre-suit willful and induced infringement claims as to one of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent No. 8,329,572, according to analysis from Holland & Knight) where knowledge was premised only on a related patent application, not the issued patent. However, claims based on knowledge of applications that had issued as patents before the lawsuit's filing were allowed to proceed.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • 2026-04-28: The Markman hearing, which had been scheduled for May 14, 2026, was cancelled by an order from District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This cancellation often precedes or coincides with the granting of a stay pending PTAB review.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • A scheduling conference took place on July 16, 2025. Fact discovery was set to close on June 29, 2026, and expert discovery on August 3, 2026. Dispositive motions were due by August 10, 2026. However, these dates may be impacted by the cancellation of the Markman hearing and the pending motion to stay.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and their effect on the litigation:

  • TSMC filed multiple IPR petitions challenging the asserted patents, including IPR2025-01210, which was explicitly mentioned in their motion to stay. The motion argued that the IPR proceedings would simplify the district court case by potentially narrowing the number of asserted patents, claims, prior art references, and claim construction issues.
  • The cancellation of the Markman hearing on April 28, 2026, suggests that a stay pending the IPR outcomes has likely been granted or is imminent.

• Current Posture:

  • As of May 22, 2026, the case appears to be paused pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings, as evidenced by the cancellation of the Markman hearing. The motion to stay pending IPR was filed in July 2025, and while a definitive order granting the stay for this specific case wasn't immediately located, the Markman cancellation is a strong indicator of a pending or granted stay.

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP) is represented by counsel from Susman Godfrey LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC in the case 2:25-cv-00324 in the Texas Eastern District Court.

The following attorneys are identified as counsel for the plaintiff:

• Bianca Rey
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel given typical firm structure in patent litigation.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Rey is known for her work in high-stakes commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.
• Stuart Eric Pollack
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Pollack has extensive experience in complex litigation, including patent infringement cases.
• Andrew Jamal Nassar
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Nassar's practice focuses on intellectual property, antitrust, and other complex commercial litigation.
• Ravi Paul Singh Bhalla
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Bhalla handles a range of complex litigation, including patent and technology disputes.
• Justin Adatto Nelson
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Nelson is a prominent trial lawyer with experience in intellectual property and other high-value commercial cases.
• Ian M. Gore
  • Role: Likely associate or counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Gore's practice includes patent litigation and other complex civil disputes.
• Claire Abernathy Henry
  • Role: Local counsel, given her affiliation with a Texas-based firm and the Eastern District of Texas venue.
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Marshall, TX (or similar East Texas office).
  • Experience Note: Ms. Henry frequently serves as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

In the patent infringement case Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, filed under case number 2:25-cv-00324 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the defendant is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC).

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) in this case includes:

• F. Scott Kieff

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key attorney given his background and frequent involvement in significant intellectual property matters.
  • Firm & Office Location: While the specific firm for this case is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, F. Scott Kieff is known to be affiliated with Kieff Strategies LLC, where he serves as an advisor and expert witness for high-stakes commercial disputes, and is also the Stevenson Bernard Professor at the George Washington University Law School. He has previously practiced law as a trial lawyer and patent lawyer for Pennie & Edmonds in New York, Jenner & Block in Chicago, and McKool Smith in D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: F. Scott Kieff is a highly respected legal scholar and practitioner in intellectual property, international trade, and antitrust. He served as a Commissioner of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) from 2013 to 2017. His expertise includes intellectual property strategy, litigation advice and testimony, and he has advised high-level government offices on national security and economics during multiple presidential administrations. He clerked for U.S. Circuit Judge Giles S. Rich, a prominent figure in patent law.

• Michael J. Hiatt

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key attorney.
  • Firm & Office Location: The specific firm for this case is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets. However, a common firm representing large technology companies like TSMC in the Eastern District of Texas is often Kirkland & Ellis. Notably, Kirkland & Ellis has represented Samsung against ZTE in UK patent litigation, which suggests their involvement in high-profile tech patent disputes. While not explicitly linked to TSMC in this case, attorneys at firms specializing in patent litigation in EDTX frequently represent major tech defendants.
  • Relevant Experience: Without a direct source connecting Michael J. Hiatt to this specific case or a specific firm, detailing his experience is difficult. However, typically, attorneys handling such significant patent litigation have extensive experience in district court and PTAB proceedings.

It is important to note that specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) and the full team composition are best confirmed directly from the PACER docket for the case, which was not directly accessed by the provided search snippets. The search results primarily mention TSMC as the defendant and discuss a motion to dismiss filed by TSMC, as well as motions to stay pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.