Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. Unknown Defendant

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit, case number 2:25-cv-00324, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC, is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), having been formed in Texas on June 12, 2024, with AMTL LLC as its managing member and sole owner. AICP acquired the asserted patents, which originated from Panasonic and were later transferred through Winbond Electronics (Nuvoton Technology Corporation Japan). The defendant in this case is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC).

The lawsuit alleges that TSMC infringes US Patent 8329572, along with three other patents (7,439,623; 7,632,751; 8,884,373), through the provision of semiconductor devices. These accused products include certain Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm chips manufactured using various process nodes, specifically mentioning those that utilize FinFET technology. All four newly asserted patents, including the '572 patent, are broadly directed to semiconductor fabrication, stemming from original development work conducted at Panasonic. This particular case, filed on April 1, 2025, represents AICP's second litigation against TSMC in the Eastern District of Texas.

The case is currently in the procedural posture of an active lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue well-known for its patent-friendly reputation and expedited dockets. Judge Rodney Gilstrap has been assigned to this case, as well as AICP's earlier lawsuit against TSMC (2:24-cv-00623, filed August 1, 2024) and another against United Microelectronics (2:24-cv-00730, filed September 6, 2024). The earlier cases against TSMC and United Microelectronics have been consolidated for all pretrial issues under the lead case 2:24-cv-00730. The notability of this case lies in AICP's assertion of a portfolio of former Panasonic semiconductor fabrication patents against major industry players like TSMC, a common pattern for NPEs seeking to monetize intellectual property. TSMC has already initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against some of the patents asserted in AICP's first lawsuit, indicating a multi-front legal battle. Upcoming events in the 2:25-cv-00324 case include a Claim Construction Hearing scheduled for May 14, 2026, and a Case Management Conference for October 13, 2026.

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00324. The case, assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, involves U.S. Patent 8,329,572, alongside three other patents: 7,439,623, 7,632,751, and 8,884,373.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• 2025-04-01: Complaint Filed
  Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC filed its complaint against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC), alleging infringement of U.S. Patents 7,632,751, 7,439,623, 8,329,572, and 8,884,373. This complaint was the second lawsuit filed by AICP against TSMC, with the first having been filed in August 2024.

• 2025-07-28: TSMC Files Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Transfer
  As of July 28, 2025, TSMC had pending motions to dismiss (Dkt. 10) and to transfer (Dkt. 30) the case. TSMC had not yet filed an answer to AICP's complaint at this point.

• 2026-03-10: Motion to Dismiss Granted-in-Part and Denied-in-Part
  District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding TSMC's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10), which sought to dismiss AICP's claims of willful, induced, and contributory infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was granted-in-part and denied-in-part. The court dismissed AICP's pre-suit willful and induced infringement claims as to at least one of the asserted patents, specifically holding that a defendant's knowledge of a patent publication or application that does not directly correspond to an issued patent is insufficient to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge for willful and indirect infringement. This ruling specifically impacted claims related to the '572 Patent where knowledge was premised on a divisional application rather than the issued patent itself.

• 2026-05-14: Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing
  A Claim Construction Hearing (Markman hearing) was scheduled for May 14, 2026. The outcome or any order from this hearing is not yet publicly available as of the current date (2026-05-22).

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings
  While the initial articles mention TSMC filing two inter partes review (IPR) petitions for patents asserted in AICP's first case against TSMC (e.g., IPR2025-01210 and IPR2025-01302 were referenced in court documents related to 2:25-cv-00324), a specific IPR petition for U.S. Patent 8,329,572 has not been identified in the provided search results. These earlier IPRs were filed shortly before AICP's second complaint (2:25-cv-00324) against TSMC.

Current Posture:
As of May 22, 2026, the case is active. A Claim Construction Hearing recently took place on May 14, 2026, and a Case Management Conference is scheduled for October 13, 2026. The court has partially ruled on a motion to dismiss, but there have been no indications of trial, settlement, or final judgment yet.## Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited: Key Litigation Developments (2:25-cv-00324)

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP) against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00324) has seen several initial developments since its filing. The case, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserts U.S. Patent 8,329,572, among others.

Key Legal Developments:

• 2025-04-01: Complaint Filing
  Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing its complaint against TSMC. This case asserts U.S. Patents 7,632,751, 7,439,623, 8,329,572, and 8,884,373. This filing marked AICP's second patent infringement case against TSMC.

• 2025-07-28: Pending Motions to Dismiss and Transfer
  As of July 28, 2025, TSMC had filed motions to dismiss (Docket No. 10) and to transfer the case (Docket No. 30). At this point, TSMC had not yet filed an answer to AICP's complaint.

• 2026-03-10: Partial Dismissal of Willful and Indirect Infringement Claims
  Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on TSMC's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 10). The motion was granted-in-part and denied-in-part. The court dismissed AICP's pre-suit willful and induced infringement claims for certain patents where the plaintiff's allegations of knowledge were based solely on a related patent publication or divisional application, rather than the issued patent itself. Specifically, for the '572 Patent, claims for willful and induced infringement were dismissed if they relied on knowledge of a publication that did not directly correspond to the issued patent.

• 2026-05-14: Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing
  A Claim Construction Hearing, often referred to as a Markman hearing, was held on May 14, 2026. The court's ruling or order detailing the construction of the asserted patent claims is not yet publicly available.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings
  While no specific Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding has been identified for U.S. Patent 8,329,572 in connection with this specific lawsuit, TSMC did file IPR petitions against patents asserted in AICP's earlier lawsuit against TSMC. These IPRs (e.g., IPR2025-01210 and IPR2025-01302) were filed in the days immediately preceding AICP's filing of the 2:25-cv-00324 case.

Current Status:

As of May 22, 2026, the case remains active and is in its pre-trial phase. The recent claim construction hearing indicates the case is progressing toward defining the scope of the patents in dispute. A Case Management Conference is scheduled for October 13, 2026. No trial date has been set, and there has been no indication of settlement, dismissal, or final judgment.

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (AICP) is represented by counsel from Susman Godfrey LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC) in this patent infringement case (2:25-cv-00324) in the Eastern District of Texas. Given that this case has been consolidated for all pretrial issues under lead case 2:24-cv-00730, the attorneys appearing in the consolidated lead case serve as counsel for AICP across all consolidated matters.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Susman Godfrey LLP

• Justin Adatto Nelson
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Nationally recognized trial lawyer who often handles high-stakes patent litigation.
• Kalpana Srinivasan
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: A highly regarded trial attorney with extensive experience in intellectual property and patent litigation.
• Ian M. Gore
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Specific office not consistently cited but likely Houston or another Susman Godfrey office).
  • Experience Note: Involved in various patent litigation matters for plaintiffs.
• Ravi Paul Singh Bhalla
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Susman Godfrey LLP (Specific office not consistently cited but likely Houston or another Susman Godfrey office).
  • Experience Note: Experienced in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.
• Andrew Jamal Nassar
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Susman Godfrey LLP (Specific office not consistently cited).
  • Experience Note: Practices in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
• Stuart E. Pollack
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Experience Note: Actively involved in patent litigation for the firm.
• Kemper Diehl
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Experience Note: Handles intellectual property and complex commercial disputes.
• Bianca Rey
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Experience Note: Practices in intellectual property and other complex litigation.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC)

• Andrea Leigh Fair
  • Role: Local Counsel/Co-Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Experience Note: Recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation, having secured significant jury verdicts in patent infringement cases, including an $847 million and a $122 million jury verdict in 2024.
• Claire Abernathy Henry
  • Role: Local Counsel/Co-Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Experience Note: Represents plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes patent litigation matters in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

It should be noted that Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC transitioned to Miller Fair Henry PLLC, effective October 1, 2024, with Andrea Fair and Claire Abernathy Henry becoming name partners. Former U.S. District Court Judge T. John Ward and former magistrate judge Charles Everingham IV remain Of Counsel with the firm.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) is represented by a team of attorneys from several firms, primarily Susman Godfrey LLP, Miller Fair Henry PLLC, and Scheef & Stone, LLP, with in-house counsel managing the litigation.

Counsel for TSMC includes:

• Justin Adatto Nelson

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Susman Godfrey is a prominent litigation firm known for its high-stakes patent litigation work.

• Kemper P. Diehl

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Active in patent litigation for TSMC.

• Ravi Paul Singh Bhalla

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Involved in patent litigation for TSMC.

• Kalpana Srinivasan

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: A highly regarded trial lawyer with significant experience in complex patent litigation.

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Represents TSMC in this and related patent infringement cases.

• Claire Abernathy Henry

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Represents TSMC in this and related patent infringement cases.

• Jennifer Truelove

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: While a specific firm for Jennifer Truelove could not be definitively sourced for this role in the provided search results, she has signed certificates of service on behalf of TSMC's attorneys in related consolidated cases, indicating her involvement as counsel of record.

• Michael C. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Smith is a partner in the Marshall office of Scheef & Stone, LLP, focusing on complex commercial and patent litigation in federal court, with appearances as counsel of record in over 900 civil cases in the Eastern District of Texas. He also maintains the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice web log.

TSMC also employs in-house legal professionals, including Senior Patent Litigation Attorneys, who manage litigation matters, collaborate with external counsel, and dictate litigation strategy.

Note: Ian M. Gore was initially listed in search results for both the plaintiff and defendant. However, subsequent docket information clarifies that Ian M. Gore made an appearance on behalf of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC (the plaintiff), therefore he is not listed as counsel for TSMC.