Untitled case

Patent Infringement Case: MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG Heats Up in Western District of Texas

Austin, TX – An ongoing patent infringement lawsuit, 1:25-cv-00436, is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, pitting intellectual property management firm MOSAID Technologies Inc. against semiconductor giant Infineon Technologies AG and its American subsidiary, Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. The case, filed on March 25, 2025, asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381.

The plaintiff, MOSAID Technologies Inc., is a Canadian intellectual property (IP) management company. Founded in 1975, MOSAID initially focused on designing and developing dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) products before evolving its business model to primarily concentrate on patent licensing, acquisition, and monetization, particularly in semiconductor and wireless technologies. This positions MOSAID as a non-practicing entity (NPE) in this litigation. The defendants, Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies Americas Corp., are major players in the semiconductor industry, designing and manufacturing a wide range of semiconductor devices for automotive, power, and security systems.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381, is titled "Method and apparatus for managing power in a memory device" and generally relates to techniques for optimizing power consumption within memory devices. While specific accused products have not been explicitly detailed in public summaries of the complaint, given Infineon's business, it is expected that the alleged infringement relates to their semiconductor memory products or devices incorporating such power management techniques. Infineon has filed counterclaims in the ongoing litigation.

This case is being overseen by District Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. Judge Albright's court has garnered significant attention in patent litigation due to its reputation for attracting a large volume of patent cases and its plaintiff-friendly procedures, including a fast-track schedule, a reluctance to stay cases pending PTAB review, and a preference for jury trials. This procedural posture is highly relevant as it often leads to quicker resolutions or trials compared to other districts, making the Western District of Texas a strategic venue for patent owners like MOSAID. The high volume of patent filings in this district, particularly by NPEs, has been a notable trend in recent years.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcomes for the patent infringement litigation case 1:25-cv-00436 in the Texas Western District Court, focusing on patent 9972381. The case remains ongoing as of the current date, May 25, 2026.

Case Name: MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG et al.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Case Number: 1:25-cv-00436
Patents at Issue: US 9,972,381 B1, among others.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • March 25, 2025: Plaintiff MOSAID Technologies Inc. filed a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies Americas Corp..
  • March 28, 2025: Waiver of Service was returned executed for Infineon Technologies AG, with an answer due by May 27, 2025. Summons was returned executed for MOSAID Technologies Inc., possibly related to a counterclaim, with an answer due by April 18, 2025.
  • April 2025 (date not specified, but after March 28): Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. filed an Answer to the Complaint, including a Jury Demand and Counterclaims against MOSAID Technologies Inc.
  • April 2025 (date not specified): MOSAID Technologies Inc. filed its Answer to Infineon's Counterclaims.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
  • April 15, 2025: The case was reassigned from Judge Robert Lee Pitman to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings.
  • April 28, 2025: A Stipulation Regarding the Deemed Date of the Rule 16 Case Management Conference was filed by MOSAID Technologies Inc.
  • April 2025 (date not specified): A Case Readiness Status Report was filed by MOSAID Technologies Inc., indicating the parties were instructed to comply with Judge Albright's Standing Order Governing Proceedings for Patent Cases.
• Claim Construction (Markman):
  • January 21, 2026: A Markman Hearing was scheduled to take place at 9:00 AM. The outcome or any order from this hearing is not yet publicly detailed in the provided search results as of May 25, 2026.
• Discovery Milestones:
  • No specific significant discovery milestones are detailed in the provided search results beyond the general requirement to comply with Judge Albright's standing orders.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:
  • The case is ongoing and has not reached the trial stage.
• Final Disposition or Present Posture:
  • The case is currently ongoing in the Western District of Texas.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
  • No specific IPR or PGR proceedings directly related to patent US 9,972,381 B1 in this case were found in the provided search results. Some results mentioned IPRs in other contexts or for other patents.I have gathered information on the case from the search results. I have identified the correct case and filtered out other cases with the same case number from different courts. I have extracted details about filing, initial pleadings, reassignment of judge, Markman hearing scheduling, and the ongoing status of the case. I also noted the absence of information on discovery, trial, settlement, or IPR/PGR for the specific patent at issue.

The summary addresses all the points requested by the user in chronological order:

• Filing & initial pleadings
• Pre-trial motions (reassignment of judge is a key motion)
• Claim construction (Markman hearing scheduled)
• Current posture (ongoing)

I need to explicitly state if information for certain sections is not available, which I have done for discovery, trial events, and PTAB proceedings.

I think the current response is comprehensive based on the provided search results and adheres to the instructions.Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcomes for the patent infringement litigation case MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00436 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, focusing on patent US 9,972,381 B1. The case remains ongoing as of May 25, 2026.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • March 25, 2025: Plaintiff MOSAID Technologies Inc. filed a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.. The asserted patents include US 9,972,381 B1, along with US 10,140,028 B2 and US 7,685,393 B2.
  • March 28, 2025: A Waiver of Service was returned executed for Infineon Technologies AG, setting an answer due date of May 27, 2025. On the same date, a Summons was returned executed by MOSAID Technologies Inc., with an answer due by April 18, 2025, likely pertaining to a counterclaim.
  • April 2025 (exact date not specified in provided results): Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. filed its Answer to the Complaint, which included a Jury Demand and Counterclaims against MOSAID Technologies Inc.
  • April 2025 (exact date not specified in provided results): MOSAID Technologies Inc. subsequently filed its Answer to Infineon's Counterclaims.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
  • April 15, 2025: The case was reassigned from Judge Robert Lee Pitman to Judge Alan D. Albright for all further proceedings.
  • April 28, 2025: MOSAID Technologies Inc. filed a Stipulation Regarding the Deemed Date of the Rule 16 Case Management Conference.
  • April 2025 (exact date not specified in provided results): A Case Readiness Status Report was filed by MOSAID Technologies Inc., noting that the parties are required to comply with Judge Albright's Standing Order Governing Proceedings for Patent Cases.
• Claim Construction (Markman):
  • January 21, 2026: A Markman Hearing was scheduled to be held at 9:00 AM. Details of the outcome or any order issued from this hearing are not available in the provided search results as of the current date.
• Discovery Milestones:
  • No specific, strategically significant discovery milestones have been detailed in the provided search results.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:
  • The case has not yet reached the trial stage.
• Final Disposition or Present Posture:
  • The case remains ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
  • No specific parallel IPR (Inter Partes Review) or PGR (Post-Grant Review) proceedings on patent US 9,972,381 B1, or their effect on this litigation, are mentioned in the provided search results.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff MOSAID Technologies Inc. in 1:25-cv-00436 (Texas Western District Court)

Plaintiff MOSAID Technologies Inc. is represented by attorneys from Winstead PC. While specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) for this particular case are not explicitly detailed in publicly available docket entries or press releases from the conducted searches, the listed attorneys are shareholders or associates within Winstead's Intellectual Property Litigation practice group and are generally recognized for their work in patent litigation. The firm has a strong presence in Texas, with relevant offices in Austin and Dallas.

Based on information from an AI litigation platform and individual firm profiles, the following attorneys from Winstead PC are associated with the plaintiff:

• Phillip B. Philbin

  • Role: Shareholder (likely lead or significant counsel given experience and firm role)
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: A seasoned trial lawyer focusing on intellectual property and business litigation, with extensive experience in complex, multi-district litigation and in monetizing patent portfolios. He is recognized as an IAM Strategy 300 Global Leader.

• Miranda Y. Jones

  • Role: Shareholder (likely lead or significant counsel given experience and firm role)
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Houston, Texas (based on news of joining firm's Houston office)
  • Experience Note: An accomplished intellectual property litigator with over a decade of experience focused on patent litigation, including complex trial and appeal proceedings and inter partes review (IPR). She has represented clients in federal courts nationwide and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Michael D. Karson

  • Role: Shareholder (likely lead or significant counsel given experience and firm role)
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: An experienced trial lawyer who focuses on patent litigation, trademark, copyright, and trade secret misappropriation cases across diverse technologies. He holds a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering and has been recognized as a "2026 Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation.

• Nadia Haghighatian

  • Role: Shareholder
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Austin, Texas
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent litigation with an electrical engineering background, litigating IP disputes for clients ranging from inventors to large technology companies across software, telecommunications, electrical, mechanical, and semiconductor technologies.

• David W. Higer

  • Role: Shareholder
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Dallas, Texas (firm's main Texas office, and listed on Dallas team for Patent Perspective blog)
  • Experience Note: A shareholder in Winstead's IP Litigation practice. Specific detailed experience for this attorney in external search results was less prominent than others, but his inclusion on the firm's IP litigation team suggests relevant experience.

• Jamie H. McDole

  • Role: Shareholder
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: An experienced first-chair trial attorney who advises clients on strategies for enforcing patent portfolios and handles intellectual property and business litigation matters. Recognized as a "2026 Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation.

• Austin Teng

  • Role: Shareholder
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Austin, Texas
  • Experience Note: Helps companies navigate complex IP and technology disputes, focusing on patent infringement and trade secret litigation. He has a software engineering background and experience across various technologies including wireless communications, streaming, display technologies, and semiconductors.

• Matthew L. Vitale

  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Dallas, Texas (based on contact info on firm profile)
  • Experience Note: Focuses on complex patent litigation matters at trial and on appeal, with experience in technologies such as image processing and accelerated erasure coding. Was part of a trial team that secured a $240 million jury verdict for StreamScale.

• Cody Carter

  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Dallas, Texas (based on contact info on firm profile)
  • Experience Note: Handles diverse intellectual property matters, from patent drafting to enforcement. Has a mechanical engineering background and judicial experience, including serving as a judicial intern to Judge Alan D. Albright in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

• Daniel S. Shuminer

  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Dallas, Texas (based on contact info on firm profile)
  • Experience Note: Focuses on high-stakes patent litigation with a deep understanding of complex technologies, including medical devices, cybersecurity, computer networking, wireless communications, and semiconductors.

• David Neal

  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Winstead PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patents, trade dress, and trade secrets, with experience in various technologies such as signal processing, software, and AI, leveraging his background as an engineer.

It is important to note that without direct access to PACER docket entries specifically detailing "Notices of Appearance" for this exact case, the precise roles of "lead counsel," "of counsel," or "local counsel" for each individual attorney cannot be definitively assigned. However, given Winstead PC's strong IP litigation practice in Texas and the listed attorneys' expertise, it is highly probable they are actively involved in representing MOSAID Technologies Inc. in various capacities.

Counsel representing the defendant(s) Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. in case 1:25-cv-00436 are from Fish & Richardson P.C..

Here are the identified attorneys:

• David M. Hoffman

  • Role: Principal (equivalent to partner), Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, Texas
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Hoffman focuses on patent litigation, inter partes review proceedings, and patent prosecution. He possesses extensive familiarity with the Western District of Texas and has experience across various electrical and mechanical disciplines, including semiconductor technology, memory, software, and wireless communications.

• Nicholas H. Wang

  • Role: Associate, Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, Texas
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Wang concentrates his practice on patent litigation in the electrical engineering field. He has experience with both patent prosecution and litigation, covering technologies such as embedded systems, controls, wireless power transfer, computer architecture, and artificial intelligence.