Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 6:24-cv-00472, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. The plaintiff is Collabo Innovations, Inc., a company headquartered in Plano, Texas, which acquired the patent-in-suit from Panasonic. Collabo Innovations has a history of initiating patent litigation since 2015, suggesting its role as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). The defendants are Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., American multinational corporations known for their semiconductor products and extensive research and development in microprocessor designs.

The lawsuit alleges that Qualcomm's Snapdragon brand of central processing units (CPUs) infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,930,575. This patent describes a "Microcontroller for controlling power shutdown process." Its technical focus is on providing a microcontroller designed to easily and rapidly evacuate and restore program-critical information when a device enters a low-power or standby state, such as when the internal operation voltage supply is shut down or lowered. The case has progressed through key procedural steps, including a Markman hearing on June 2, 2025, which led to a Claim Construction Order issued on October 7, 2025, construing disputed terms like 'microcontroller' and 'microprogram'. Judge Albright previously declined Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, deeming it premature before claim construction issues were resolved.

This case is notable due to its venue in the Western District of Texas, which, under Judge Albright, became a prominent forum for patent litigation. While the practice of automatic assignment of patent cases to Judge Albright in the Waco Division was later randomized in July 2022, this particular case was transferred to his court in November 2024, reportedly due to Collabo's prior litigation history before him. Furthermore, the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,930,575, has been the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings; the claim construction order specifically referenced a partial disclaimer made by the patentee during an IPR for the term 'microprogram'. Records indicate that Qualcomm itself initiated IPR2025-01015 against the '575 patent on May 20, 2025, in addition to earlier IPRs filed by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in 2019, and a request for reexamination filed in October 2025.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al. (6:24-cv-00472)

This report details the key legal developments and current posture of the patent infringement case, Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00472, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The litigation concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,930,575.

Key Legal Developments

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Plaintiff Collabo Innovations, Inc. initiated the lawsuit on September 13, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,575.
• Answer & Counterclaims: Specific dates for the defendants' answer and any counterclaims were not immediately available in the search results.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Scheduling Order: An initial scheduling order (Docket 35) was in place by December 31, 2024. [cite: 6 of previous turn, 13 of previous turn]
• Protective Order: By August 28, 2025, a protective order (Docket 31) was in place. This order likely addressed "Development Bar" and "Acquisition Bar" provisions to safeguard Qualcomm's confidential information during discovery, as referenced in a related case. [cite: 8 of previous turn]
• Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines: On April 29, 2026, Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. filed a Joint Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines (Docket 74). This motion was subsequently terminated by the court, noting that such a motion was not required if the criteria of a new standing order (dated September 19, 2025) were met, suggesting it should be refiled as a Notice or Stipulation.
• Trial Dates Vacated: In a significant development, Judge Alan D. Albright issued an order on April 24, 2026 (Docket 73), vacating all previously scheduled hearings, pretrial conferences, and trial dates. This included the jury trial previously set for August 17, 2026, and the final pretrial conference for July 31, 2026. [cite: 4 of previous turn] As of the current date, no new trial schedule has been publicly confirmed following this vacatur.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Markman Hearing: A Markman hearing was held on June 2, 2025.
• Claim Construction Order: The court issued its Claim Construction Order on October 7, 2025.
  • The term "microcontroller" was construed according to its plain-and-ordinary meaning.
  • The term "microprogram" was construed as 'a control program for controlling internal sources of the CPU in order to execute command, interrupt processing, and the like, that runs at the lowest level of hardware.' The court noted that the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer and made a partial disclaimer during a prior Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding regarding this term.
  • Two other claim terms, "the clock generator selection term" and "the selective execution term," were found indefinite.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• The deadline for dispositive motions is currently set for July 10, 2026. This date remains on the docket despite the vacation of other trial-related dates.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• No trial has occurred, and therefore no verdict or post-trial motions have taken place. The previously scheduled trial has been vacated.

6. Final Disposition/Present Posture:

• The litigation remains active. However, all scheduled trial-related dates have been vacated, leading to an uncertain immediate future for the case. No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reached.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2019-01523 (by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies U.): This IPR, challenging Patent No. 7,930,575, was filed on October 29, 2019. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review on March 27, 2020. [cite: 1 of previous turn]
• IPR2019-01524 (by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies U.): Also filed on October 29, 2019, challenging Patent No. 7,930,575, institution for this IPR was likewise denied on the merits. [cite: 7 of previous turn]
• IPR2025-01015 (by Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.): The defendants in the district court case, Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., filed a new IPR against Patent No. 7,930,575, with an effective date of May 20, 2025. The institution decision for this IPR is currently pending. It is likely that the ongoing IPR by the defendants contributed to the district court's decision to vacate its trial schedule.
• IPR2025-00328 (by Intel Corporation): Another IPR, IPR2025-00328, was filed by Intel Corporation, referencing the district court case 6:24-cv-00472-ADA, with a petitioner exhibit filed on May 15, 2025. The status of institution for this IPR is also not yet determined. [cite: 5 of previous turn]

Collabo Innovations, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. in the patent infringement case 6:24-cv-00472 in the Western District of Texas.

The following attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. are identified as counsel with significant patent litigation experience, and are likely to be representing the plaintiff:

• Ed Nelson III

  • Role: Principal (likely lead counsel)
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., Fort Worth, Texas. The firm also has offices in Dallas, Texas, and Burr Ridge, Illinois, and provides counsel in federal courts across the country, including Texas.
  • Experience: A founding partner concentrating on patent infringement and technology-based complex commercial litigation, with extensive trial and appellate experience, including a substantial willful patent infringement verdict against [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)

• Patrick J. Conroy

  • Role: Principal (likely lead counsel)
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent infringement, trade secret, and technology-based claims, with extensive trial court experience as lead counsel in federal and state courts nationwide and the International Trade Commission. He has been recognized on the Texas Super Lawyers list since 2014 and the IAM Strategy 300 as one of the World's Leading IP Strategists for 2024 and 2025.

• David T. DeZern

  • Role: Partner (likely counsel)
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience: Focuses on guiding clients through all stages of patent litigation, with successful resolution of cases involving telecommunications, software, electronic design automation, and video coding technologies. He is a registered patent attorney.

The firm often serves as lead counsel and is experienced as local counsel in federal and state courts in Texas.

The defendant, Qualcomm Incorporated, is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators from multiple firms, as well as in-house counsel.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for Qualcomm:

Outside Counsel:

• Winston & Strawn LLP

  • Thomas M. Melsheimer (Lead Counsel) - Dallas, TX. Melsheimer is a prominent trial lawyer known for high-stakes patent litigation. He has extensive experience representing major technology companies.
  • Michael A. Bittner (Counsel) - Dallas, TX.
  • Natalie Terhune Arbaugh (Counsel) - Dallas, TX.

• Covington & Burling LLP

  • Anupam Sharma (Counsel) - Office location not specified in the immediate results, but Covington & Burling has a strong IP litigation practice.
  • Richard L. Rainey (Counsel) - Office location not specified.

• The Dacus Firm, P.C.

  • Deron R. Dacus (Local Counsel) - Tyler, TX. Dacus is frequently listed as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

While not explicitly listed in the immediate docket search results for this specific case, based on Qualcomm's history and general patent litigation trends, other firms frequently represent them:

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP has a long-standing relationship with Qualcomm, representing them in numerous high-profile patent and antitrust disputes, including significant victories against Apple and Arm.
• Paul Hastings LLP is another firm with a strong patent litigation practice that has represented major technology companies in complex IP disputes, including in the semiconductor and telecommunications sectors.
• Fish & Richardson P.C. is a top-ranked intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation across various venues, including district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB, and has represented clients in the telecommunications industry.
• DLA Piper has also represented Qualcomm in past patent litigation, and their patent litigation group frequently defends clients in US district courts.

In-House Counsel:

Qualcomm maintains a robust in-house legal team that actively manages and supports its litigation efforts, often collaborating closely with outside counsel.

• Robert Giles (Senior Vice President, Chief IP Counsel) - Joined Qualcomm in 2012 from Morrison & Foerster LLP, where he litigated IP disputes. He manages litigations in the U.S., China, and Europe.
• Stephen Wurth (Attorney, In-house Litigation Team) - Manages offensive and defensive litigation matters globally. Previously Senior IP Counsel for Motorola Mobility.
• John Scott (Vice President and Legal Counsel) - Manages patent litigation for Qualcomm, focusing significantly on defending against Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) litigation.
• Ann Chaplin (General Counsel & Corporate Secretary) - Oversees overall management of the legal department at Qualcomm, including complex litigation such as IP disputes.