Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. v. Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm

This patent infringement litigation, filed as 1:25-cv-00215 in the Western District of Texas, pits patent assertion entity (PAE) Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. against technology giants Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., and Qualcomm Inc. Marlin Semiconductor is a subsidiary of IPValue Management, Inc., a patent monetization firm that acquired a substantial portfolio of semiconductor-related patents from United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) in 2021. The plaintiff, along with its affiliate Longitude Licensing Ltd., asserts five U.S. patents, including US Patent No. 9,093,473, which are broadly directed to various aspects of semiconductor fabrication, logic, memory, manufacturing processes, and packaging patents. The defendants are accused of infringement through the provision and/or incorporation of semiconductor devices fabricated using "any of TSMC's 16nm and smaller process nodes," as well as "downstream products" that incorporate such semiconductor devices, including desktop computers, smartphones, smartwatches, tablets, and wearables. A specific one-line technical sketch for patent 9093473 beyond its general semiconductor fabrication focus is not readily available from the public search results.

The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. While the specific judge assigned to this case is not explicitly stated in all public records, the case number 1:25-cv-00215-ADA suggests it is assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, identified by the "-ADA" suffix. The Western District of Texas, particularly the Waco division, has historically been a popular venue for patent litigation, largely due to Judge Albright's efforts to attract patent cases through plaintiff-friendly procedures and fast-paced dockets. Although new rules were implemented in July 2022 to randomize patent case assignments across judges in the district, Judge Albright continues to receive a significant number of cases, especially those related to existing litigation campaigns. A co-pending investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), titled "Certain Foreign-Fabricated Semiconductor Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof" (Inv. No. 337-TA-1443), involves the same parties and asserted patents, with an evidentiary hearing scheduled for February 2, 2026. Defendants Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm have filed an unopposed motion to stay the district court action pending the final determination of the ITC investigation.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It represents an assertion by a prominent patent monetization firm, IPValue, against major players in the semiconductor and consumer electronics industries. The assertion pattern highlights the ongoing trend of NPEs leveraging acquired patent portfolios from operating companies like UMC. The parallel ITC investigation adds a layer of complexity and potential for expedited resolution, as ITC proceedings often move faster than district court cases and can result in exclusion orders preventing the importation of infringing products. Furthermore, the filing in the Western District of Texas continues to draw attention due to its historical reputation as a plaintiff-friendly patent venue, even with recent procedural changes impacting judge assignments. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC) and Apple have also initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00847) against a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,745,847, challenging its patentability. This interconnected web of litigation—district court, ITC, and PTAB IPRs—underscores the multi-front strategy often employed in high-stakes patent disputes in the semiconductor industry.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Marlin Semiconductor Ltd v. Apple, Inc. et al. (1:25-cv-00215)

The patent infringement lawsuit, 1:25-cv-00215, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas by Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. and Longitude Licensing Ltd. against Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., and Qualcomm Inc. The case involves U.S. Patent 9,093,473, among others, and remains active.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-02-13): Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited filed a complaint for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas. The defendants named were Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., and Qualcomm Inc. The asserted patents broadly relate to semiconductor fabrication.
• Summons Issued and Executed (2025-02-13 to 2025-02-21): Summons were issued to Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm on February 13, 2025. Broadcom was served on February 13, 2025, with its answer due by March 6, 2025. Apple was served on February 14, 2025, with its answer due by March 7, 2025. The docket indicates a demand for a jury trial by the plaintiffs.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

Specific details on motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay within this particular Western District of Texas case (1:25-cv-00215) are not readily available in the initial search results beyond the filing of the complaint and service. It is crucial to distinguish this case from other unrelated cases sharing the same numerical identifier in different jurisdictions (e.g., Alabama, Eastern District of Texas, Ohio, Indiana, S.D.N.Y.).

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

No information regarding a Markman hearing or claim construction order for this specific case was found in the provided search results.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

General discovery milestones for this specific case were not found.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

No information regarding trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions is available as the case is relatively new and still active.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

The case is currently active.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions have been filed against patents owned by Marlin Semiconductor Limited, some of which originate from the same portfolio of former United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) patents as the one asserted in this litigation.

• IPR2025-01082 (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v. Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.): Filed on August 7, 2025. This IPR names Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. as a patent owner. Although TSMC is not a direct defendant in this specific W.D. Tex. case (1:25-cv-00215), it is involved in parallel litigation brought by the same plaintiffs (e.g., 2:25-cv-00171 in the Eastern District of Texas) and is generally implicated in the infringement allegations related to its semiconductor manufacturing processes. Further details would be needed to confirm if US9093473 is explicitly challenged in IPR2025-01082.
• IPR2025-00865 (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v. Marlin Semiconductor Limited): Filed on April 17, 2025, and terminated on September 3, 2025, this IPR targeted U.S. Patent 9,147,747, which is a different patent from the one specified in the prompt but is part of the broader portfolio being litigated by Marlin Semiconductor.
• IPR2025-01444 (Marlin Semiconductor Limited as Patent Owner): This IPR concerns U.S. Patent 7,547,584 B2, also a different patent from the one specified, but shows ongoing PTAB activity involving Marlin Semiconductor.

The effect of these IPRs on the 1:25-cv-00215 litigation would depend on whether any of the petitions specifically target US9093473 and if institution is granted. If the PTAB institutes review and subsequently finds claims unpatentable, it could lead to a stay of the district court litigation or impact its outcome.

Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators from two firms: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C. and Miller Fair Henry PLLC. The attorneys listed below have appeared in the District Court case or related PTAB proceedings.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C.

This firm is a significant player in patent litigation, with a strong focus on high-stakes cases in federal district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Michael T. Renaud
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Firmwide Chair of Intellectual Property Division
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Recognized as one of the "World's Leading IP Strategists," he is an experienced litigator and central tactician in multinational enforcement, licensing, and litigation strategies, with a background in mechanical engineering. He has led teams successfully enforcing patents for semiconductor companies like GlobalFoundries.
• William A. Meunier
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Member)
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., (specific office not detailed, but firm has offices in Boston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington, DC).
  • Experience Note: Has decades of experience in high-stakes patent litigation and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, with a high success rate for patent owners in IPRs. He has successfully defended semiconductor patents against IPR petitions.
• Adam S. Rizk
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Member)
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., (specific office not detailed, but he has written on EDTX and ITC matters).
  • Experience Note: Focuses on high-tech patent litigation in the ITC and federal district courts, with experience in complex technologies such as microprocessors, digital/RF circuitry, and semiconductor devices. He has driven multiple ITC investigations to successful outcomes.
• Matthew A. Karambelas
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Member)
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: An experienced patent litigator specializing in ITC, U.S. District Court, and Federal Circuit cases, including for semiconductor companies.
• Jessica L. Perry
  • Role: Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., (specific office not detailed, but she has experience with the Eastern District of Texas).
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and advising clients on infringement and invalidity issues, with experience in federal district court, ITC, and PTAB across various industries including software and medical devices.
• Paul Weinand
  • Role: Counsel (Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: An intellectual property litigator who represents clients in federal District Courts, the US International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, handling disputes in consumer electronics, AI, and medical devices.
• Tianyi Tan
  • Role: Counsel (Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., (specific office not detailed).
  • Experience Note: Was part of a Mintz team that secured a significant defense victory for Juul Labs at the US International Trade Commission.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC

This firm frequently serves as local counsel or co-counsel in high-stakes intellectual property and patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

• Andrea L. Fair
  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and has collaborated with lead counsel in numerous trials in the Eastern District of Texas, contributing to significant patent infringement verdicts.
• Garrett C. Parish
  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Experience Note: Handles matters involving patents and complex commercial litigation, with extensive experience in patent trials and developing trial strategies in East Texas federal courts.

The following counsel of record represent the defendants in Longitude Licensing Ltd. et al v. Apple, Inc. et al, case number 1:25-cv-00215, in the Western District of Texas. The defendants are Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., and Qualcomm Inc. The case has been stayed as to these defendants pending a final determination by the U.S. International Trade Commission in a parallel action (Inv. No. 337-TA-1443).

For Defendant Apple Inc.:

• Brian K. Erickson
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant Apple Inc.
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US), Austin, TX.
  • Experience Note: Brian Erickson is a partner at DLA Piper, focusing on intellectual property litigation, particularly in patent and trade secret disputes across various technologies.

For Defendant Broadcom Inc.:

• Steve R. Borgman
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant Broadcom Inc.
  • Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Steve Borgman is a partner and experienced patent litigator with a focus on high-stakes intellectual property disputes.

For Defendant Qualcomm Inc.:

• Evan Pearson
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant Qualcomm Inc.
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Experience Note: Evan Pearson is a partner at Quinn Emanuel specializing in patent litigation, particularly in the Western District of Texas.