Untitled case

This active patent infringement litigation, case number 2:24-cv-00730, is currently proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The plaintiff is Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP), which appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) based on its litigation patterns against semiconductor manufacturers. The primary defendant is United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC), a Taiwanese pure-play semiconductor foundry that designs, develops, and markets high-performance analog and mixed-signal integrated circuits. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) is also involved as a consolidated defendant in a related member case (2:24-cv-00623-JRG).

The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 8,907,425, which broadly covers a semiconductor device, particularly relating to field-effect transistors (FETs) and integrated devices formed on semiconductor substrates. AICP alleges that UMC infringes this patent, along with several others, through its manufacture and sale of certain semiconductor devices, specifically citing UMC's fabrication processes at 22nm and 28nm nodes and products such as the Qualcomm MDM9625M and Microsemi MPF300T-FCG484E semiconductor devices.

This case is notable as it exemplifies ongoing patent assertion strategies by NPEs in the semiconductor industry. The Eastern District of Texas remains a popular venue for patent litigation due to its historical reputation as a "rocket docket" with plaintiff-friendly procedures and accelerated trial schedules, although the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 has impacted venue options. The defendants, UMC and TSMC, have actively challenged the asserted patents by filing inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a common defensive maneuver in patent litigation to contest patent validity.

This report summarizes the key legal developments and outcomes for the patent infringement litigation case 2:24-cv-00730 in the Eastern District of Texas, involving US patent 8907425.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

The case, Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. United Microelectronics Corporation, was filed on September 6, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP) accused United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) of directly and indirectly infringing seven patents, including 8907425, through the manufacture and sale of certain semiconductor devices. Specifically, AICP identified the Qualcomm MDM9625M and Microsemi MPF300T-FCG484E semiconductor devices as infringing products.

The case was later consolidated with another related case, Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (2:24-cv-00623), on December 6, 2024.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

On December 6, 2024, UMC filed a motion to dismiss AICP's claims for direct and pre-suit indirect infringement, arguing that AICP "merely parrots the claim language" and failed to provide adequate notice of its claims. However, the Court denied UMC's motion to dismiss on September 30, 2025.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

A Markman hearing was initially scheduled for December 18, 2025, but was later reset for January 13, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Court anticipates that the parties will evaluate the appropriateness of mediation after the issuance of the claim construction order.

Discovery Milestones & Trial Events

A Second Docket Control Order, issued on February 21, 2025, set out various deadlines, including a pretrial conference for May 18, 2026, and jury selection for June 22, 2026, both in Marshall, Texas, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Deadlines were also set for disclosing final invalidity theories, prior art references, and equitable defenses by the defendant (7 days before jury selection), and for the plaintiff to disclose its final election of asserted claims (10 days before jury selection).

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC), a defendant in the consolidated case, filed multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against AICP's patents, including some asserted in this litigation. For example, IPR2025-00830 was filed by TSMC against AICP on April 14, 2025, challenging patent 8,253,180. Many of TSMC's IPR requests were denied institution by the PTAB. UMC also filed IPR petitions, but did so later than TSMC. The PTAB noted UMC's "unexplained delay in filing its petition" and that the projected date for the institution decision would occur after the Markman hearing and shortly before the close of fact discovery in the parallel litigation. UMC also "inexplicably declined to join TSMC's motion" to stay.

Plaintiff in this case, Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC, is represented by counsel from Susman Godfrey LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC.

The identified counsel of record for the plaintiff are:

From Susman Godfrey LLP:

• Kalpana Srinivasan
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely, given her senior position at a prominent litigation firm and the nature of the case)
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Kalpana Srinivasan is a highly regarded trial lawyer, consistently recognized for her work in high-stakes intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. She has secured significant verdicts and settlements for clients in various technology sectors.
• Justin Adatto Nelson
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely, given his senior position at a prominent litigation firm)
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Justin Nelson is a trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent infringement cases and other complex commercial disputes, often serving as lead counsel.
• Ian M. Gore
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP.
  • Experience Note: Ian Gore filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in this case, indicating his active involvement. His work at Susman Godfrey LLP involves complex litigation.
• Ravi Paul Singh Bhalla
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP.
  • Experience Note: Ravi Bhalla is an attorney at Susman Godfrey LLP, a firm known for its high-stakes litigation, including patent cases.
• Andrew Jamal Nassar
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP.
  • Experience Note: Andrew Nassar is an attorney at Susman Godfrey LLP, involved in complex litigation matters.
• Bianca Rey
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP.
  • Experience Note: Bianca Rey is an attorney at Susman Godfrey LLP, a firm specializing in high-stakes litigation.

From Miller Fair Henry PLLC:

• Claire Abernathy Henry
  • Role: Local Counsel (Likely, given the firm's location in the Eastern District of Texas)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Miller Fair Henry PLLC is a Texas-based firm, and Claire Henry is likely providing local counsel support for the plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Andrea Leigh Fair
  • Role: Local Counsel (Likely, given the firm's location in the Eastern District of Texas)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Andrea Fair, as part of Miller Fair Henry PLLC, likely provides local counsel expertise in the Eastern District of Texas for patent litigation.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record through multiple searches.

I found the primary defendant's counsel. Let me gather more detail, including local counsel and TSMC's counsel in the consolidated case.

Let me verify the full counsel list on the docket and check for additional appearances, including recent ones.

Based on my research, here is the counsel information for the defendant side. One important framing note up front: case 2:24-cv-00730 is the lead case and UMC is its named defendant; TSMC is the defendant in the member case (2:24-cv-00623) that was consolidated into the lead case on December 6, 2024 (Dkt. 12). I therefore profile UMC's counsel first, then TSMC's appearances as co-defendant in the consolidated proceeding.

---

Defendant United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) — Lead Case 2:24-cv-00730

UMC is represented by Troutman Pepper Locke LLP (the firm formed from the 2025 combination of Troutman Pepper and Locke Lord; earlier docket entries and firm pages still show the "Locke Lord LLP" name). All three attorneys below appear in the docket's party-attorney block for UMC and are electronically "noticed."

Corroboration of active role: UMC's P.R. 3-3 invalidity-contentions notice (served May 1, 2025; Dkt. 106) is signed by all three — "/s/ Mark Hannemann" (PHV), Dornberger, and Bennett — each expressly captioned "COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT UNITED MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION." Hannemann is the attorney who signed UMC's December 6, 2024 motion to dismiss (Dkt. 15) and the March 2026 sealed summary-judgment motions on the '425 and other patents, so the lead-counsel designation is well supported.

Related PTAB counsel (not district-court counsel of record): In the parallel IPRs UMC filed against AICP (e.g., IPR2025-01076 on the '227 patent; the '425 patent is IPR2025-01090), a "Tim Xia" of Troutman Pepper Locke (Atlanta) also appears as petitioner's counsel. Note this is the PTAB caption, not the EDTX docket sheet, so I flag it as PTAB-side representation rather than a District Court appearance.

---

Co-Defendant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (member case 2:24-cv-00623, consolidated)

For completeness — since TSMC litigates alongside UMC in the consolidated proceeding and the '425 patent is asserted against UMC in Count 7 — TSMC made a large number of appearances on Nov. 29–Dec. 4, 2024. Attorneys appearing of record on the TSMC side include Jennifer Leigh Truelove, James E. Quigley, Gyushik Jang, Christian A. Chu, Michael J. McKeon, Iman Lordgooei, Karrie E. Washenfelder Wheatley, Kevin K. Su, Anthony Van Nguyen, James Lee Huguenin-Love, and Benjamin Christoff, plus pro hac vice admittees Jodie W. Cheng, Karolina Jesien, Conrad Gosen, Sean S. Pak, and Jacqueline T. Moran (and a 2026 PHV appearance by Carlos Eduardo Duarte-Guevara).

⚠️ Caveat: I was not able to confirm TSMC's law firm for these attorneys from a primary court source in this session (the CourtListener/PACERMonitor listings show names and appearance dates but the firm field did not populate in the results I retrieved). I have not assigned firms to these TSMC-side attorneys to avoid inventing affiliations; the firms should be verified against the docket party block before being relied on. If you want, I can pull the TSMC member-case docket's party-attorney block specifically to firm these up.

---

Points to flag / reconcile with the existing sections

1. Your prior section named no defense counsel. This section fills that gap: the defense side is a Troutman Pepper Locke team (not, e.g., a dedicated EDTX local-counsel firm). Unlike many EDTX cases, I found no separate local-counsel firm appearing for UMC — the Texas-barred Houston attorneys (Dornberger, Bennett) are serving that function.
2. Firm name drift: Early filings use Locke Lord LLP; current docket/firm pages use Troutman Pepper Locke LLP. Same entity — worth noting if you cite firm names across sections.
3. Pro se / sealed: No indication UMC or TSMC is proceeding pro se, and no indication that any defense counsel's identity is sealed. Some UMC motions (e.g., the March 2026 summary-judgment filings and motions to strike) are filed under seal, but the attorneys-of-record are public on the docket sheet, so this does not obscure counsel.
4. One unresolved thread I could not verify: additional pro hac vice defendant-side appearances logged in mid/late 2026 (docket entries ~446–448 in the lead case) — I could not retrieve the names before exhausting my search budget. If those are defendant-side, they may add counsel not listed here.

Key sources: EDTX docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00730-JRG (party-attorney block and entry list); UMC Notice of Compliance/Invalidity Contentions, Dkt. 106 (May 2, 2025); CourtListener dockets 69137887 (lead) and 69008657 (TSMC member); Troutman Pepper Locke attorney profiles for Hannemann and Dornberger; PTAB IPR2025-01076 caption.