Chien-Min Sung v. Texas Instruments Inc.

Chien-Min Sung, an individual inventor with a background as a geochemistry Ph.D., has initiated patent infringement litigation against Texas Instruments Inc. (TI), a major American multinational semiconductor company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. TI is a significant player in the semiconductor industry, known for developing analog chips and embedded processors, and holds a leading market share in analog semiconductors. While the specific accused products of Texas Instruments are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets for this particular case, the asserted patent relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad dressers, a semiconductor manufacturing technique.

The patents at issue include U.S. Patent No. 8,974,270, among others (9,138,862 and 9,724,802 also mentioned in related Samsung case, which subsumes the claims against TI). Patent 8,974,270 is generally directed to CMP pad conditioners (also referred to as pad dressers) with a hybridized abrasive surface and related manufacturing methods. These conditioners feature abrasive segments, each comprising a segment blank and an abrasive layer with a superhard abrasive material, affixed to a substrate to remove material from a CMP pad.

This litigation is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, before Judge Sean D. Jordan, with the case currently stayed pending the resolution of TI's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for fast trials, local rules, and juries often perceived as plaintiff-friendly, although recent Supreme Court rulings like TC Heartland have aimed to restrict venue options. The case is notable not only because it involves a prominent semiconductor company but also due to its procedural posture, being stayed pending a summary judgment motion challenging patent invalidity based on an "on-sale" bar. Furthermore, there is a parallel action against [Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al. involving the same patents, which was also stayed pending the outcome of TI's summary judgment motion, highlighting a broader assertion strategy by Chien-Min Sung against major semiconductor manufacturers. An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2024-00533) related to the '270 patent was also initiated by Samsung, but was dismissed by agreement of the parties on appeal. Another IPR, IPR2024-00535, was filed by Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC challenging a CMP pad dresser patent based on a broken priority claim, with a final written decision of "Unpatentable".

The patent infringement litigation of Chien-Min Sung v. Texas Instruments Inc. (4:23-cv-00753-SDJ) in the Eastern District of Texas is currently stayed pending the resolution of Texas Instruments' (TI) Motion for Summary Judgment.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

• Complaint Filing (August 21, 2023): Chien-Min Sung filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. in a parallel action (4:23-cv-00752-SDJ) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,138,862, 9,724,802, and 8,974,270. It is highly probable that the Texas Instruments case, a parallel action, was filed around the same date, though the exact filing date for 4:23-cv-00753-SDJ is not precisely specified in the direct results.
• TI's Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) (Prior to May 14, 2024): Texas Instruments filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #27) asserting that the asserted claims of the patents at issue, including U.S. Patent No. 8,974,270, are invalid under the "on-sale" bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). TI contended that the accused product was on sale before the critical dates of the patents.
• Court Grants Stay Pending MSJ Resolution (May 14, 2024): The Eastern District of Texas granted TI's Motion to Stay the Case Pending Resolution of TI's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court found good cause to grant the stay, concluding that the "core question" of invalidity due to the on-sale bar was ripe for adjudication and could be resolved without the need for further discovery or claim construction.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Filings by Samsung (February 29, 2024): Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., defendants in a parallel infringement case, filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions against patents asserted by Chien-Min Sung, including:
  • IPR2024-00533 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,974,270.
  • IPR2024-00534 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,138,862.
  • IPR2024-00535 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802.
• Institution Decision in IPR2024-00535 (September 18, 2024): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on IPR2024-00535, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802.
• Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00535 (September 17, 2025): The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00535, finding the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802 unpatentable. This decision was subsequently appealed.
• Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal for IPR2024-00533 (March 9, 2026): An appeal (2026-1197) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning IPR2024-00533 (related to U.S. Patent No. 8,974,270) was dismissed by agreement of the parties.

Current Posture: The district court litigation remains stayed pending the resolution of Texas Instruments' Motion for Summary Judgment. No trial has occurred, and the focus is on the pending dispositive motion. While parallel IPRs have occurred for some of Sung's patents, the specific impact of the IPRs on the Texas Instruments case is still unfolding, particularly as the district court awaits a decision on TI's summary judgment motion. There is no indication that Texas Instruments itself has filed an IPR against U.S. Patent No. 8,974,270.

To identify the counsel of record representing Chien-Min Sung in Chien-Min Sung v. Texas Instruments Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00753-SDJ, a review of the court's docket would be necessary. Publicly available search results confirm the existence of the case and its status, noting it is stayed pending resolution of TI's Motion for Summary Judgment. However, the provided search snippets do not explicitly list the plaintiff's counsel of record, their roles, firms, office locations, or relevant patent litigation experience.

Therefore, without direct access to the docket sheet for case 4:23-cv-00753-SDJ, the specific counsel information for the plaintiff cannot be provided at this time. Filings would need to be reviewed to identify the attorneys who have entered an appearance on behalf of Chien-Min Sung.

Counsel of Record for Texas Instruments Inc. in Chien-Min Sung v. Texas Instruments Inc.

As of June 17, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing Texas Instruments Inc. in the patent infringement case Chien-Min Sung v. Texas Instruments Inc. (Case No. 4:23-cv-00753-SDJ) in the Eastern District of Texas has not been explicitly identified through publicly available web search results, such as legal news articles or firm press releases that detail appearances in this particular case. While Texas Instruments employs in-house patent attorneys (as indicated by career postings for Patent Attorneys in their legal department located in Dallas, Texas), these general job descriptions do not specify who is representing the company in this ongoing litigation.

Information regarding the attorneys of record, their specific roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel, in-house), and their affiliated firms and office locations, typically appears in the docket filings (e.g., notices of appearance) which are not directly accessible through general web searches. Therefore, a definitive list of the defendant's counsel for this case cannot be provided without direct access to the court's electronic docket (PACER).