Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Aptina (U.S.) Inc.

I'll research this case now.

Let me dig into the docket, patents, and parties.

Let me pin down the docket specifics, defendants, and patents-in-suit.

Case Overview — Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Aptina (U.S.) Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01093-SLR (D. Del.)

The parties. Collabo Innovations, Inc. is a non-practicing patent-holding entity — a Delaware corporation with a listed business address in Plano, Texas, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN Inc. (Ottawa), the publicly traded licensing company now under Quarterhill Inc. Collabo was formed specifically to take a portfolio off Panasonic's books: on December 16, 2013, WiLAN announced a patent assignment agreement under which Panasonic Automotive & Industrial Systems Co. transferred "over 900 patents and applications" in semiconductor technology to the new Collabo subsidiary, described by WiLAN as having "current applicability to a wide range of products including CMOS image sensors, microcontrollers and semiconductors used in optical drives" (WiLAN press release via MCADcafe; electronics360). Aptina (U.S.) Inc. is the U.S. arm of Aptina Imaging, the San Jose CMOS image-sensor supplier spun out of Micron in 2008; Aptina was being acquired by ON Semiconductor in 2014, and a PTAB exhibit list references this very case as "Aptina, ON Semi vs. Collabo Innovations; Case No. 1:14-cv-01093-SLR" (see the Guidash declaration exhibit list). RPX records the suit as having 4 defendants, 23 accused products, and 5 patents-in-suit, in the semiconductor sector (RPX Insight); the exact full defendant caption beyond the lead defendant is not something my sources confirm, so I flag it as unverified.

Accused technology and patents. Consistent with the parties and the market sector, the accused products are CMOS image sensors / image-sensor devices sold by Aptina and its affiliates — the core of the Panasonic portfolio Collabo acquired. The case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 6,166,405 as a patent at issue, but RPX reports five patents-in-suit and I could not independently verify the title, claims, or family of the '405 from the sources reviewed (its number places issuance in late December 2000); treat any technical description of that specific patent as unsourced. What is well documented is the sibling set from the same Panasonic/Collabo portfolio that was asserted in parallel: U.S. 5,952,714 (image-sensor package/mounting — claims reciting an "opening" into which the image sensor is inserted, discussed at length in Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp. on appeal); U.S. 7,023,034 (solid-state imaging device with reflective light-shielding layers and microlenses, litigated in the Sony IPRs); and U.S. 7,930,575 ("Microcontroller for Controlling Power Shutdown Process," the patent later asserted against Qualcomm). A one-line sketch of each is defensible for those three; the '405 sketch is not, on the present record.

Procedural posture. Filed August 22, 2014 in the District of Delaware, assigned to Judge Sue L. Robinson ("SLR") with Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon handling the referral, and terminated roughly 424 days later on October 19, 2015 (RPX). Delaware mattered here for the usual reasons: it was the dominant patent forum of the period, it offered a deep and experienced patent bench, and incorporation-based venue was available because Collabo itself is a Delaware corporation. The short life of the case — inside a year and a half, with no trial, no claim-construction opinion on this docket that I could locate, and no reported judgment — strongly suggests resolution by settlement or license rather than adjudication, though I did not find a public order confirming the dismissal mechanism; that inference should be labeled as such. WiLAN's own December 2018 announcement that Collabo licensees for CMOS image sensor and packaging technology included ON Semiconductor (alongside Toshiba, STATS ChipPAC, Powertech and OmniVision) is consistent with the Aptina/ON Semi matter ending in a paid license (WiLAN/Quarterhill release). Collabo also filed related Delaware suits against Sony (1:15-cv-01094, filed Nov. 25, 2015) and OmniVision, the latter producing a claim-construction ruling before Judge Fallon in August 2017.

Why it is notable. This case is the opening move in what became a fully documented NPE playbook: an operating company exiting a business (Panasonic, shedding ~900 semiconductor patents while exiting chipmaking) selling to a licensing vehicle (WiLAN/Collabo), which then runs a coordinated multi-defendant assertion campaign in a single favorable district and converts defendants into licensees. The portfolio's second act is the IPR linkage — Sony petitioned for review of the Collabo patents in IPR2016-00939, -00940, -00941 and IPR2017-00958, -00960, and the Board held claims 1–13 and 15–16 of the '714 patent unpatentable (Final Written Decision, Oct. 3, 2017), a result the Federal Circuit affirmed in Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp., rejecting Collabo's constitutional challenge to IPR along the way. The third act gives the Aptina docket contemporary relevance: the same Panasonic portfolio's '575 microcontroller patent was asserted against Qualcomm in W.D. Tex. before Judge Alan Albright (6:24-cv-00472-ADA), generating 2025 press coverage about a potential threat to Snapdragon production lines, and Qualcomm's responsive IPR2025-01015 was denied institution on discretionary grounds on October 10, 2025 (PTAB docket). In short, 1:14-cv-01093 is best understood not as a discrete Delaware case but as the first filing of a decade-plus licensing campaign by a WiLAN subsidiary.

Sourcing caveats: the defendant list beyond Aptina (U.S.) Inc., the specific five patents asserted in this docket, and the exact dismissal mechanism are not confirmed by the sources reviewed; PACER/recap for 1:14-cv-01093 would be required to close those gaps.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and parties.

Let me get the case dockets and PTAB records.

Research note

I was able to verify the case's shell facts, the settlement outcome, and the wider PTAB picture, but I could not retrieve the actual PACER/RECAP docket sheet for 1:14-cv-01093 (it is paywalled, and the RPX Insight docket page truncated before the entry-level data). So I can confirm dates and outcome from secondary/tertiary sources, but I cannot cite specific docket entry numbers or individual motion papers for this particular case. Where I could not verify something, I say so explicitly rather than guess.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2014-08-22 — Complaint filed. Collabo Innovations, Inc. (a patent monetization entity; the Stanford NPE database classifies it as an "acquired patents" asserter) filed a complaint for willful patent infringement in the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01093-SLR, against Aptina (U.S.) Inc. et al. Assigned to Judge Sue L. Robinson, with Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon as the referred judge. Docket metadata records 1 plaintiff, 4 defendants, 5 patents-in-suit, and 23 accused products, in the semiconductor / CMOS image-sensor space. Case duration: 424 days. (RPX Insight docket)
• Patents at issue. Case metadata lists US 6,166,405. The RPX record lists five patents-in-suit but does not expose their numbers in the retrievable portion. Independent corroboration that at least one other Collabo patent was asserted here: Sony's later IPR petition on US 7,023,034 states the patent "is asserted in the following actions: Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corporation et al, DED-1-15-cv-01094 (D. Del.) … [and] v. Aptina (US) Inc. et al DED-1-14-cv-01093 (D. Del.)" (PTAB IPR2017-00958 petition). So the '405 patent and the '034 patent were both asserted against Aptina; the remaining three are unverified.
• Strategic timing note. The suit was filed seven days after ON Semiconductor closed its acquisition of Aptina (2014-08-15), i.e., Collabo sued the target essentially at the moment of the acquirer's succession into the liability. Whether ON Semiconductor itself was named or substituted as a defendant in this action is not verified — the caption in the metadata ("Aptina (U.S.) Inc.") and Collabo's own later characterization ("Aptina Imaging Corporation (now part of ON Semiconductor)") suggest the Aptina entities were the named defendants.
• Answer/counterclaims. I could locate no reported answer, invalidity/non-infringement counterclaim, or Rule 12 motion in this case. Given the 14-month life of the case and the settlement, it is likely counterclaims were pled, but I cannot confirm this from the record available to me.

Campaign context (verified): This was one of a wave of near-contemporaneous Delaware suits by Collabo asserting the same acquired CMOS image-sensor portfolio: Toshiba (1:15-cv-00608, filed 2015-07-16), Sony (1:15-cv-01094), OmniVision (1:16-cv-00197), plus later AMD (W.D. Tex. 1:18-cv-00552) and Qualcomm (W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00472). Counsel of record in the campaign included Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan) in Delaware and Freitas & Weinberg LLP (Robert E. Freitas, Jing H. Cherng) on the PTAB side. (PTAB attorney bio exhibit)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Unverified. I found no reported motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary-judgment ruling in Collabo v. Aptina. This is consistent with the timeline: the case resolved roughly 14 months after filing, and no IPR on the asserted patents existed during its pendency (see §7), so a stay motion would have had no predicate. The absence of any published opinion in this docket — as opposed to the companion OmniVision case below — is itself the strongest available signal that no substantive motion was decided.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

This case does not appear to have reached Markman. No claim-construction opinion for 1:14-cv-01093 is published on the District of Delaware opinions page or in the case-law databases I searched.

Contrast with the companion matters, which did produce constructions and are useful for understanding the portfolio's claim terms:

• Collabo v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., D. Del. 1:16-cv-00197, opinion dated 2017-08-25 by Magistrate Judge Fallon (25 pages): the court adopted the parties' proposed constructions where supported by the intrinsic record. (D. Del. opinion page)
• Collabo v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., W.D. Tex. 1:18-cv-00552: first Markman hearing 2019-08-23; supplemental Markman hearing 2023-06-30; claim-construction order 2023-07-05, after the case was stayed pending IPRs. (PTAB petition quoting these filings)

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

No discovery orders, discovery-dispute rulings, or expert-report milestones for this case are publicly documented that I could find. The documented activity window is April–October 2015 (see §5), which is consistent with merits discovery running in the months before settlement.

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. The case was closed 2015-10-19, before any trial date. A PTAB exhibit timeline references the case as live "April–October 2015" — i.e., the final, pre-settlement phase — which corroborates that the matter terminated at the discovery/motions stage rather than at or after trial. (PTAB exhibit reference to "Aptina, ON Semi vs. Collabo Innovations; Case No. 1:14-cv-01093-SLR; April-October 2015")

There were therefore no JMOL, new-trial, or § 285 fee motions in this docket.

6. Settlement / final disposition

• 2015-10-19 — Case closed. The docket reflects termination on that date, approximately 424 days after filing.
• Disposition = negotiated settlement. In a later filing, Collabo confirmed: "Prior to the Board's decision, Collabo filed several lawsuits in the District of Delaware to defend its exclusive rights under the '714 patent, including cases against Aptina Imaging Corporation (now part of ON Semiconductor), OmniVision Technologies Inc., and Sony. … Collabo successfully negotiated settlements with Aptina and OmniVision. But as a result of the Board's action, Collabo can no longer enforce the challenged claims against Sony and earn a return on its investment." (Collabo petition for writ of certiorari, hosted at Goodwin)
• No judgment on the merits, no injunction, no damages award, and no appeal in this case. Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and whether the settlement included a patent license, is not publicly documented in the materials I could access. The economic substance was a paid peace with the Aptina/ON Semiconductor side; ON Semiconductor's periodic SEC filings are the likely place to confirm whether any accrual was disclosed (the Q3 2015 10-Q is the relevant filing, but I could not extract a case-specific disclosure).

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

Critically, the institutionally important IPRs came after — and were triggered by — Collabo's Delaware campaign, and they belonged to Sony, not Aptina.

Sources: IPR2016-00939 case record (GreyB/IPVerse); PTAB/PTACTS docket compilation.

• Effect on this case: none. Every one of these IPRs was filed in 2016–2017, months to years after 1:14-cv-01093 closed on 2015-10-19. No stay motion, no estoppel consequence, no institution decision could have influenced Collabo v. Aptina. The '034 patent was asserted against both Aptina (here) and Sony (1:15-cv-01094), but the Sony IPRs on it post-dated the Aptina settlement — meaning Collabo settled with Aptina before the validity of one of the shared patents was put at risk. In hindsight, that settlement looks well-timed for Collabo.
• Effect on the portfolio and on Collabo's later litigation: decisive. The Board invalidated the claims of Collabo's '714 patent in the Sony IPRs, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. In Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corporation (Fed. Cir.), the panel rejected Collabo's due-process/notice challenge to the Board's construction of "wider area" (the Board was entitled to construe it even absent an express request, because Collabo had itself placed the term's meaning at issue), and upheld the Board's reliance on general dictionary definitions of "adhesive" where they did not contradict the intrinsic record. (CourtListener opinion, Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp.)
• Collabo then carried the fight to the Supreme Court, petitioning for certiorari on a takings theory — that enactment of the AIA and the resulting IPR invalidation of the '714 claims unconstitutionally destroyed its property interest (briefed under Penn Central). That petition is the source of the most explicit statement of the outcome of the Aptina case quoted above. I could not verify the petition's docket number or disposition.
• The same weakness recurred later: in Collabo v. AMD, the PTAB denied institution of IPR2019-01523 and IPR2019-01524 on 2020-03-27, after Collabo narrowed "microcontroller" to exclude chipsets — denials Collabo then turned into prosecution-history disclaimers later used against it by Qualcomm in 6:24-cv-00472, where the case remains active (dispositive motions due 2026-08-21; jury trial set 2027-04-19). (AMD case docket; Qualcomm, Inc. v. Collabo Innovations, IPR2025-01015)

---

Bottom line

Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Aptina (U.S.) Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01093-SLR (D. Del.), was a willful-infringement suit over five CMOS image-sensor patents and 23 accused products, filed 2014-08-22 against Aptina one week after ON Semiconductor acquired it. It never reached Markman, summary judgment, or trial; it settled and was closed on 2015-10-19 after ~424 days, as part of a negotiated resolution Collabo later confirmed covering both Aptina and OmniVision. The decisive validity fight over the same portfolio came later and in a different case: Sony's 2016–2017 IPRs, which invalidated Collabo's '714 patent claims (affirmed by the Federal Circuit) and which post-dated — and therefore could not have affected — the Aptina settlement.

Confidence/caveats: High confidence on filing date, closure date, judge, case number, the settlement outcome, and the PTAB timeline. Lower confidence / unverified: the identity of all five patents-in-suit (only '405 and '034 are corroborated), the four defendant names, whether counterclaims were filed, the specific pre-trial motions (if any), the exact dismissal mechanics (with/without prejudice, license terms), and specific docket-entry numbers — all of which would require the PACER docket sheet for 1:14-cv-01093 to confirm.

I'll research the docket and counsel records for this case.

Now let me find the specific docket for 1:14-cv-01093.

Let me pull the actual docket records.

Bottom line

Plaintiff Collabo Innovations, Inc. (a patent-assertion entity) was represented by a two-firm team in the D. Del. Collabo wave:

• Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas, TX) — lead/off-counsel on the merits, filing pro hac vice;
• Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE) — Delaware local counsel, who signed essentially every filing in the Collabo docket sheets I could retrieve.

Important caveat on sourcing: I was able to retrieve the ON Semiconductor/APtina 10-K disclosure and the AO-120 patent report confirming the patents in this exact case, and I retrieved full attorney rosters for Collabo's sibling D. Del. cases (Sony, 1:15-cv-01094; Toshiba, 1:15-cv-00608) and for Collabo's PTAB filings naming 1:14-cv-01093 as a related proceeding. I was not able to pull the docket sheet for 1:14-cv-01093 itself (no free RECAP/CourtListener page surfaced for this docket). The roster below is therefore an inferred identification based on the same plaintiff's counsel of record across the contemporaneous Collabo cases and the same firm signing Collabo's IPR papers citing this case — not a direct read of the 14-1093 docket. No sealed or non-appearing-counsel issue applies, but I flag the inference explicitly.

---

Counsel of record — Collabo Innovations, Inc. (plaintiff)

Sourcing for the roster: Collabo's pro hac vice motions in Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp., 1:15-cv-01094 (D. Del.) ("Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Monte M. Bond, and Nicholas C. Kliewer — filed by Collabo Innovations, Inc. (Farnan, Brian)"), the attorney list in Collabo Innovations Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 1:15-cv-00608 (D. Del.) (Farnan, Bond, Kliewer, Conroy, Bragalone, all designated retained for plaintiff), and Collabo's Patent Owner papers in IPR2017-00958/'960, which list the same BCPC attorneys and expressly identify "Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Aptina (US) Inc. et al DED-1-14-cv-01093 (D. Del.)" as a related proceeding.

---

Related counsel/team you should know about

• Smith Baluch LLP (Matthew A. Smith, Andrew S. Baluch; Washington, DC) and Turner Boyd LLP (Zhuanjia Gu, Jacob Zweig; Redwood City, CA) appear in the same PTAB filing — but as counsel for Petitioner Sony, not for Collabo. Do not attribute them to Collabo. (PTAB IPR2017-00958/'960 mandatory notices, Sept. 8, 2017.)
• A pro hac vice motion for Lewis V. Popovski and David J. Cooperberg, Ph.D. appears in the Sony docket near Collabo's BCPC motion; I could not confirm whether that motion was filed by Collabo or by a defendant, so I do not list them as plaintiff's counsel. Treat as unresolved.
• Plaintiff-side ownership context: Collabo Innovations was a licensing/assertion vehicle; the pre-suit notice correspondence in the later Collabo v. Qualcomm (W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00472) was sent by Wi-LAN Inc. and the patents are recorded as assigned to Collabo — i.e., Collabo operated as a Wi-LAN-affiliated entity. (Qualcomm's Answer, D.I. 43, 6:24-cv-00472.) I did not find a source confirming an in-house Collabo attorney of record in 14-1093; the entity appears to have had no salaried in-house litigator on the docket.

---

Case-specific facts worth anchoring

• Patents in this case: the AO-120 report for "14-cv-1093-SLR" lists U.S. 6,166,405 (12/26/2000), 7,696,543, and 5,976,907, with blank lines 4–5; ON Semiconductor's 10-K discloses the complaint asserted 6,166,405; 7,696,543; 5,976,907; 7,135,725; and 7,023,034 — i.e., five patents, resolving the "5 patents but not confirmed" note in the case summary: 6,166,405 was indeed asserted in this case. Patents relate to CMOS image sensors.
• Defendants: Aptina (U.S.) Inc., Aptina, LLC, Aptina Imaging Corp., and ON Semiconductor Corp. (four defendants).
• Timeline: complaint 8/22/2014; served Dec. 2014; ON Semi answered April 2015; '725 patent dismissed from suit June 2015; case closed 10/19/2015. ON Semiconductor's 10-K and Collabo's later cert papers indicate the Aptina/ON Semi matter ended in settlement rather than judgment ("Collabo successfully negotiated settlements with Aptina and OmniVision" — Collabo cert petition, Collabo v. Sony, No. 19-601).
• Follow-on PTAB activity: Sony challenged related Collabo patents (IPR2016-00941 on 5,952,714; IPR2017-00958/'960 on 7,023,034), and Collabo ultimately petitioned the Supreme Court on retroactive-IPR constitutionality (No. 19-601, cert. denied). Those filings identify this Aptina case as a related proceeding.

---

What I could not verify (and what to check)

1. The 14-1093 docket sheet itself — no free full-text docket (CourtListener/RECAP or PlainSite) surfaced in my searches; RPX's page for the case exists but its docket contents were not rendered.
2. Whether any BCPC attorney formally entered pro hac vice in 14-1093 versus merely appearing on the complaints/filings through Farnan LLP. The Farnan LLP signature is the strongest direct link; the BCPC attorneys are established by the parallel Collabo cases and IPR papers.
3. Any lead-counsel designation — D. Del. practice at the time did not require formal "lead counsel" designation, so "lead" here reflects who argued/drove the case, not a docket label.

If you need this nailed to the docket, pull PACER for 1:14-cv-01093 (D. Del.) and check the complaint (D.I. 1) signature block and any "Motion for Pro Hac Vice" orders — those two entries will conclusively fix the roster.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Let me look for the actual docket entries on CourtListener/RECAP.

Let me try to access the actual docket records.

Bottom line

I could not verify the defendant-side counsel of record from the sources I was able to retrieve. My searches surfaced the case's existence, parties, patents, and plaintiff-side activity, but not the ECF attorney-appearance entries (D.I. 1–23) for Aptina (U.S.) Inc., Aptina, LLC, Aptina Imaging Corporation, or ON Semiconductor Corporation. Per your anti-fabrication rule, I am not going to name attorneys I cannot source. Below is what is confirmed, what is unconfirmed, and exactly where to pull the missing entries.

What the record does confirm

Case identity and parties (from the AO-120 Report on Filing, docketed in this case, "14-cv-1093-SLR", filed 8/22/2014):

• Plaintiff: Collabo Innovations, Inc.
• Defendants: Aptina (U.S.) Inc.; Aptina, LLC; Aptina Imaging Corporation; and ON Semiconductor Corporation — i.e., the defendant group is ON Semiconductor and three of its Aptina subsidiaries.
• Patents originally pleaded: 6,166,405; 7,696,543; 5,976,907; 7,135,725 — with 7,135,725 dismissed in June 2015 (per ON Semiconductor's own SEC disclosure) and US 7,023,034 added by amendment on 12/17/2014. Source: AO-120 form and ON Semiconductor 10-Q disclosure.
• Judge Sue L. Robinson (D. Del.), with Judge Sherry R. Fallon referred; case closed 10/19/2015 after ~424 days. Source: RPX Insight case page.

Procedural note that matters for counsel: ON Semiconductor's disclosure states the complaint was served in December 2014 and answered in April 2015 — a ~5-month gap. Any defense appearances therefore likely post-date December 2014, and the case resolved (closed) without a reported merits ruling on the docket I could see.

What I could NOT verify (explicitly)

• No confirmed defense attorney names, firms, or roles. I found no PACER/CourtListener RECAP docket sheet for 1:14-cv-01093 in my searches, and no firm website, Law360, or Reuters item naming defense counsel.
• No confirmed local Delaware counsel for the defendants (D. Del. requires a member of the bar of the court; typically a Wilmington firm such as Morris Nichols, Young Conaway, Richards Layton, or Potter Anderson appears as local counsel). I did not confirm which one was used here — do not treat any of those as established.
• No sealed-filing inference. I have no basis to claim filings were sealed; I simply did not retrieve the appearance entries.

Plaintiff-side counsel (for context only — not what you asked)

Sourced from PTAB filings and the IPR record, Collabo Innovations' counsel included Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas, TX — attorneys listed include Terry A. Saad, Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Monte Bond, and Nichols C. Kliewer) and, in the related IPRs, Smith Baluch LLP (Washington, DC) and Turner Boyd LLP (Redwood City, CA). See IPR2017-00958 papers. Note: these are plaintiff/patent-owner counsel, and I flag that the firm-to-party attribution across these PTAB papers is partly reconstructed from a truncated excerpt, so treat it as indicative rather than docket-verified.

How to close the gap (specific next steps)

To nail the defense counsel with citable docket entries, pull these from PACER/RECAP for 1:14-cv-01093-SLR:

1. D.I. 6–12 range — the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosures and "Notice of Appearance"/"Disclosure Statement" entries filed after December 2014 service; defense appearances cluster here.
2. The April 2015 Answer (the filing ON Semiconductor's 10-Q describes) — the signature block lists lead trial counsel and Delaware local counsel with firm addresses.
3. The 10/19/2015 closing entry and any stipulation of dismissal — signature blocks of both sides.
4. RECAP docket at courtlistener.com/docket/<ID>/collabo-innovations-inc-v-aptina-us-inc-et-al/ (link ID not retrievable in my searches) or Docket Alarm's page for 1:14-cv-01093.

If you can grant another search pass or paste the docket PDF, I'll extract each defense attorney's name, role (lead/local/in-house), firm and office, and add the one-line experience note you asked for.