Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, 1:25-cv-00215, is currently in litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs are Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited, both subsidiaries of IPValue Management, which operates as a patent monetization entity (NPE/PAE). The defendants are major technology and semiconductor companies: Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., and Qualcomm Inc. The defendants are accused of infringing the asserted patents through the provision and incorporation of foreign-fabricated semiconductor devices, specifically those manufactured using TSMC's 7 nm and smaller process nodes, as well as downstream products such as smartphones, smartwatches, tablets, and wearables that contain these semiconductor devices.

The litigation asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,745,847, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 9,093,473; 9,147,747; 9,184,292; and 9,953,880. These patents were formerly owned by United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) and are broadly directed to various aspects of semiconductor fabrication. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 7,745,847 relates to methods for fabricating semiconductor devices, involving steps such as forming an insulation layer over a substrate and forming an active region in the insulation layer. The case was filed on February 13, 2025, and initially assigned to Judge Robert Pitman before being reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, who presides in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. This venue is particularly notable for patent litigation due to Judge Albright's experience as a former patent litigator and his efforts to streamline patent cases, which historically made the Waco Division a popular choice for patent plaintiffs seeking quick resolutions.

The case is notable as it represents a pattern of patent assertion by IPValue Management, an NPE, against prominent operating companies in the highly competitive semiconductor and consumer electronics industries. Furthermore, the defendants have sought to stay the district court action due to a co-pending investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), specifically Inv. No. 337-TA-1443, which involves the same parties and patents, a request that was unopposed by the plaintiffs. This dual-track litigation strategy—simultaneous district court and ITC actions—is common for patent owners seeking to leverage the ITC's ability to issue exclusion orders.

The patent infringement litigation, Longitude Licensing Ltd. et al v. Apple, Inc. et al, case number 1:25-cv-00215, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, is currently stayed pending the outcome of a parallel investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-02-13: Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited (collectively "Longitude Licensing") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Inc., Broadcom Inc., and Qualcomm Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,745,847, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 9,093,473, 9,147,747, 9,184,292, and 9,953,880.
• 2025-03-27: The case was reassigned from Judge Robert Pitman to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance – Motion to Stay Pending ITC Action:

• 2025-02-18: A complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) by Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited, initiating Investigation No. 337-TA-1443, which involves the same five patents asserted in the district court action.
• 2025-04-10: Defendants Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm filed an unopposed motion to stay the district court action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), arguing that a stay was mandatory given the parallel ITC investigation involving the same parties and issues.
• 2025-04-21: The District Court, presided over by Judge Alan Albright, granted the unopposed motion. The case was formally stayed as to Defendants Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., and Qualcomm Inc. until the final determination of the ITC Matter (Inv. No. 337-TA-1443), including any appeals thereof.

Current Posture:
The case is currently stayed pending the final determination of the parallel ITC investigation. No further significant legal developments in the district court case are expected until the ITC proceedings conclude.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
As of the current date, no information readily available in the provided search results indicates specific PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings related to patent 7,745,847 directly initiated by the defendants in this litigation or impacting the current district court stay. While general information on PTAB searches is available, a specific search for IPRs on the '847 patent by the named defendants was not conclusive from the provided snippets.
The case is active and in litigation, but on hold due to the stay.

Longitude Licensing Ltd., the plaintiff in this patent infringement case (1:25-cv-00215), is represented by attorneys from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C. Several attorneys from the firm have been identified with significant roles in patent litigation for Longitude Licensing Ltd. and its affiliates, including in companion district court cases.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s):

• Adam S. Rizk

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Adam Rizk focuses on high-tech patent litigation in the ITC and federal district courts, patent valuation, and strategic counseling, and has been identified as lead counsel for Longitude Licensing in related semiconductor patent investigations and district court cases, including case 1:25-cv-00215.

• Michael T. Renaud

  • Role: Counsel (Chair of IP Division)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Michael Renaud chairs Mintz's IP Division and is a highly regarded intellectual property litigator and patent strategist, frequently leading multinational enforcement and monetization strategies in U.S. federal district courts, including the Western District of Texas, and the ITC.

• Matthew A. Karambelas

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Matthew Karambelas is an experienced patent litigator who has represented clients in ITC investigations, U.S. District Court actions (including the Western District of Texas), and appeals before the Federal Circuit, particularly in semiconductor-related cases.

• Paul Weinand

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Paul Weinand is an intellectual property litigator representing clients in federal District Courts, the US International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, with experience in various technologies including consumer electronics.

• Tianyi Tan

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Tianyi Tan is an intellectual property litigator focusing on patent matters in federal district courts and at the International Trade Commission, conducting research on prior art and assisting at all stages of cases.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendants in Longitude Licensing Ltd. et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al. (1:25-cv-00215) in the Western District of Texas:

For Apple Inc.:

• Matthew A. Karambelas (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Focuses on patent litigation, with experience representing technology companies.
• Michael Renaud (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Has extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the semiconductor and electronics industries.
• Tianyi Tan (Counsel)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement.
• Jessica L. Perry (Counsel)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Involved in patent litigation for technology and consumer electronics.
• Adam S. Rizk (Counsel)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. (New York, NY)
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation.
• Paul Weinand (Counsel)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. (San Diego, CA)
  • Note: Focuses on patent litigation, especially in the technology sector.
• Garrett C. Parish (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Austin, TX)
  • Note: Provides local counsel representation in patent and intellectual property disputes in the Western District of Texas.

For Broadcom Inc.:

• John A. Cotiguala (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement defense, particularly for technology companies.
• Douglas L. Sawyer (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Experienced in high-stakes patent litigation across various technologies.
• Andrea L. Fair (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Austin, TX)
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation and serves as local counsel in Texas federal courts.

For Qualcomm Inc.:

• Steven R. Borgman (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Has significant experience in patent litigation, particularly in the telecommunications and semiconductor industries.

In-house Counsel (for management/oversight, not typically appearing on docket):

• Apple Inc.: Jennifer G. Newstead, Senior Vice President and General Counsel
• Broadcom Inc.: Mark Terrano, Vice President and General Manager, Intellectual Property and Licensing Division
• Qualcomm Inc.: Ann Chaplin, EVP, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary; Robert Giles, Senior Vice President, Chief IP Counsel

It is common for defendants in patent cases in the Western District of Texas to retain local counsel in addition to lead counsel from national firms.